[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110201195604.GS31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 19:56:04 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
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>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 08:32:01PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 05:06:37PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > So? You're not _supposed_ to call it from any atomic context ever.
>
> My motivation for a more complicated clk_prepare was to make clk_prepare
> atomic when that's possible (i.e. when the clk is already prepared) and
> call it before the enable callback in clk_enable. Then everything
> behaves nicely even if clk_enable is called from atomic context provided
> that the clock was prepared before (or doesn't need to).
You really don't get the point of clk_prepare() do you. I'm not
going to bother trying to educate you anymore.
Hopefully someone with more patience can give you the necessary
teaching to make you understand.
--
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