[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201101112235.43061.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2011 22:35:42 +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-König"
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
Hi Paul,
> Again, you are approaching it from the angle that an atomic clock is a
> special requirement rather than the default behaviour.
I'm not considering it a special requirement, but it's still a requirement
(that the called function does not sleep).
The problem with the inverse logic (clk_enable/clk_enable_sleepable) is that
now you've made the caller need to know what kind of clock it has, or might
have one day.
* For clk_enable/clk_enable_atomic, the decision is: is this call in an
atomic context?
* For clk_enable/clk_enable_sleepable, the decision is: might the clock code
have given us a sleeping clock?
Note that it's much easier to guarantee correctness for the first than it is
for the second.
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