[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110115150331.GB6917@pengutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:03:31 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Christer Weinigel <christer@...nigel.se>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
Hi Russell,
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 02:53:58PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> We've been around returning EAGAIN, WARN_ONs, BUG_ONs, having clk_enable()
> vs clk_enable_atomic(), clk_enable_cansleep() vs clk_enable(), etc.
>
> There's been a lot of talk on this issue for ages with no real progress
> that I'm just going to repeat: let's unify those implementations which
> use a spinlock for their clks into one consolidated solution, and
> a separate consolidated solution for those which use a mutex.
>
> This will at least allow us to have _some_ consolidation of the existing
> implementations - and it doesn't add anything to the problem at hand.
> It might actually help identify what can be done at code level to resolve
> this issue.
Great, so how should we do it? Take Jeremy's patch and make the
differenciation between sleeping and atomic implementation a Kconfig
variable?
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