[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110121093218.GB13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:32:18 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Uwe Kleine-K??nig <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:12:45PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> In my opinion, the only major reason for needing atomic clk APIs was due
> to device_ops->suspend being atomic. Since that's not the case anymore,
> I really don't see a justification for atomic clocks. Sure, I might have
> missed some exceptions, but in that case we should make the atomic APIs
> an exception (add clk_enable_atomic) and not the norm.
The suspend method has never been atomic. It has always been able to
sleep. You're mistaken.
--
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