[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110121094042.GD13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:40:42 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-sh <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Richard Zhao <linuxzsc@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 11:16:04PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> This suggestion looked promising till I realized that clk_set_rate()
> will still be atomic. clk_set_rate() will need to enable/disable the
> PLLs depending on which PLLs the rates are derived from. So, the locking
> in clk_prepare/unprepare() still has to be atomic since the "slow stuff"
> is shared with clk_set_rate().
Who calls clk_set_rate() from an atomic context? Do we know whether
anyone does?
--
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