[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100611095839.GC10894@pengutronix.de>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:58:39 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Lothar Waßmann <LW@...O-electronics.de>
Cc: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Ben Herrenchmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:23:56AM +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > Using a mutex in clk_enable()/clk_disable() is a bad idea, since that
> > > makes it impossible to call those functions in interrupt context.
IMHO if a device generates an irq its clock should already be on. This
way you don't need to enable or disable a clock in irq context.
> > Do we do this at the moment? I know at least one implementation of clk_enable
> > uses a mutex for locking.
> >
> You are probably talking about the Freescale i.MX51 kernel, that won't
> even boot, if you enable CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK,
> CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP and CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP.
> The mutex in the clock implementation is one of the reasons.
I will have a look into this later today.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists