[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1101201623480.8580@xanadu.home>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:30:27 -0500 (EST)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
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,
Uwe Kleine-K??nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
On Thu, 20 Jan 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 04:29:15PM +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > I really don't like the fact that people are doing these things in
> > atomic contexts, and I think we should apply some pressure to move
> > the atomic caller cases to use systems where they can sleep such as
> > using threaded-irq handlers (they work very nicely)
>
> How do you ensure that printk is always called from a non-atomic
> context?
Is this a good example? I don't think that power sensitive systems such
as a cellphone should keep printk() enabled in the final product. The
output from printk() over a serial port is a debugging convenience, and
trying to aggressively turn on/off the serial clock around each call to
printk() is a bit silly. Better simply turn the serial clock on
whenever its console facility is opened, and turn it off when the
console is closed, which should be good enough in that context.
Nicolas
--
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