[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110127085438.GA25239@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 08:54:38 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>,
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>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.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 Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:34:20PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> I'm not too familiar with serial/tty, does anyone know if the
> .set_termios needs to be atmoic? If not, we could just change
> cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c to use mutex instead of spinlock.
The locking is there to protect against the interrupt handler accessing
the port->* stuff (which seems to have been forgotten by the cpm driver).
I don't see any reason why clk_set_rate() needs to be under the spinlock
there - we need the reprogramming of the baud rate within the spinlock
on 8250 because of DLAB bit hiding the data registers. It's also a good
idea that it _is_ within the spinlock along with uart_update_timeout()
to ensure timeouts and the baud rate are updated together.
--
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