[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110201170637.GR31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 17:06:37 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
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 04:53:44PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> 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.
So? You're not _supposed_ to call it from any atomic context ever.
--
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