[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19474.2817.333749.485028@ipc1.ka-ro>
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:08:01 +0200
From: Lothar Waßmann <LW@...O-electronics.de>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.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
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.
>
You may want to disable a clock in the IRQ handler. The VPU driver in
the Freescale BSP for i.MX51 does exactly this.
Anyway I don't see any reason for using a mutex here instead of
spin_lock_irq_save() as all other implementations do.
Lothar Waßmann
--
___________________________________________________________
Ka-Ro electronics GmbH | Pascalstraße 22 | D - 52076 Aachen
Phone: +49 2408 1402-0 | Fax: +49 2408 1402-10
Geschäftsführer: Matthias Kaussen
Handelsregistereintrag: Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB 4996
www.karo-electronics.de | info@...o-electronics.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