[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTimayMAfr+zA6uO_yUmZqsOLmJ3fiiS696mL_evn@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 22:05:56 +0900
From: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
2011/2/1 Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>:
.....
> Do you plan to handle the case that clk_enable is called while prepare
> isn't completed (considering the special case "not called at all")?
> Maybe BUG_ON(clk->ops->prepare && !clk->prepare_count)?
Sounds better than the second option.
> Alternatively don't force the sleep in clk_prepare (e.g. by protecting
> prepare_count by a spinlock (probably enable_lock)) and call clk_prepare
> before calling clk->ops->enable?
That might result in a driver working on some platforms(those have
atomic clk_prepare)
and not on others(those have sleeping).
Njoi!
--
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