Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 22 Jan 2021 10:52:18 -0500 (EST)
From:   Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
cc:     Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@linaro.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] PM / clk: make PM clock layer compatible with clocks
 that must sleep
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0hj4VC_kjB5e_b_ho=ET_quG5zUh0Dbbdwofp-6azopsw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <66o22n46-n7p6-3p8r-3ssp-rs8oo28n87nq@syhkavp.arg>
References: <17nqrn25-rp5s-4652-o5o1-72p2oprqpq90@onlyvoer.pbz> <CA+G9fYsyXsNSXGy6BWZ6mgpAP=+7r6Xy9jQ2xxb9mXyHdRoBCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMuHMdULW4bnb0Jc0+ZaF9P2VNgnYsvEks7y8WYCk045BHqh7A@mail.gmail.com> <CA+G9fYvh0iSyEDQs7+0CX82FLPDCg5UmAt+1JuPsndmfmYF3kw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hFjpGp2GbV1Evi+BbUF7Am4ETY4Cm8VzTrvTJ=7=oyPQ@mail.gmail.com> <84r6s34s-opq7-9358-o45n-27s17084012@onlyvoer.pbz> <CAJZ5v0jUxonxp0q80Kdcbax+WMmh-NZ_h=KQG-HcfFdE1hr4VA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJZ5v0hj4VC_kjB5e_b_ho=ET_quG5zUh0Dbbdwofp-6azopsw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 22 Jan 2021, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

> > > +/**
> > > + * pm_clk_list_unlock - counterpart to pm_clk_list_lock().
> > > + * @psd: the same pm_subsys_data instance previously passed to
> > > + *      pm_clk_list_lock().
> > > + */
> > > +static void pm_clk_list_unlock(struct pm_subsys_data *psd)
> 
> Locking annotations for sparse were missing here and above, so I've
> added them by hand.

Thanks.

> Please double check the result in my linux-next branch (just pushed).

There are still the following warnings:

drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c:52:13: warning: context imbalance in 'pm_clk_list_lock' - wrong count at exit
drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c:64:13: warning: context imbalance in 'pm_clk_list_unlock' - wrong count at exit

I guess this can be silenced (still need to investigate how those 
annotations work).

But I'm more worried about these:

drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c:86:12: warning: context imbalance in 'pm_clk_op_lock' - different lock contexts for basic block
drivers/base/power/clock_ops.c:131:39: warning: context imbalance in 'pm_clk_op_unlock' - unexpected unlock

Those are special locking helpers indeed and I don't know if that can be 
dealt with.


Nicolas