[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201101111830.18597.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:30:18 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To: Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>
Cc: "Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
"Uwe Kleine-K?nig" <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
Hi Paul,
> No, the sleeping clock case is and always will be a corner case, and I
> have no interest in pretending otherwise. On SH we have hundreds of
> clocks that are all usable in the atomic context and perhaps less than a
> dozen that aren't (and even in those cases much of the PLL negotiation is
> handled in hardware so there's never any visibility for the lock-down
> from the software side, other architectures also have similar behaviour).
I'm not too worried about the corner-cases on the *implementation* side, more
the corner-cases on the API side: are we seeing more users of the API that
require an atomic clock, or more that don't care?
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
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