[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110201155344.GF1147@pengutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:53:44 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.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>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:24:58PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:18:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > yeah, didn't thought about multiple consumers, so (as Jeremy suggested)
> > the right thing is to sleep until CLK_BUSY is cleared.
>
> A simpler way to write this is:
>
> int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
> if (clk->prepared == 0)
> ret = clk->ops->prepare(clk);
> if (ret == 0)
> clk->prepared++;
> mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);
>
> return ret;
> }
But you cannot call this in atomic context when you know the clock is
already prepared.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
--
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