[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D48741F.8060006@codeaurora.org>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 12:59:11 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
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 02/01/2011 07:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>
> I'd also be tempted at this stage to build-in a no-op dummy clock,
> that being the NULL clk:
>
> int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> if (clk) {
> mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
> if (clk->prepared == 0)
> ret = clk->ops->prepare(clk);
> if (ret == 0)
> clk->prepared++;
> mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);
> }
>
> return ret;
> }
I'm afraid this will hide enable/disable imbalances on some targets and
then expose them on others. Maybe its not a big problem though since
this also elegantly handles the root(s) of the tree.
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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