[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110110110028.GB12552@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:00:29 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
Ben Herrenchmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 11:41:22AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> This branch must be reworked because the correct locking is missing, but
> the first branch should be ready for merging once your clk-common
> patches are merged. I'll post the patches for review soon. I hope it's
> clear soon that your clk-common patches get merged.
Unless the locking problems can be resolved, the patches aren't ready.
>From what I've seen there's still quite a problem with what kind of
lock to use in the clock - mutex or spinlock.
I don't see that having some clocks be one and others another is really
acceptable - think about the resulting mess if you end up with some
parent mux'd clocks which are a mutex and others which are a spinlock.
Can a driver use an atomic call for that? Sometimes depending on the
mux, sometimes depending on whether a parent clock is already enabled.
What if your clock was enabled while the mux selected another spinlock-
locked clk, but then you switched to a different operating point and the
mux then selected the mutex-locked clock.
We could say that this is illegal - but then we need to have the code
explicitly check this otherwise such situations will be created.
--
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