[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111219032712.GB4962@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 11:27:13 +0800
From: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...escale.com>
To: Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>
CC: <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, Wolfgang Denk <wd@...x.de>,
Stefano Babic <sbabic@...x.de>,
Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>,
Huang Shijie <b32955@...escale.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MXS: Convert mutexes in clock.c to spinlocks
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:06:13PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> The mutexes can't be safely used under certain circumstances. I noticed this
> issue during some network instability at home:
>
Yes, this is a known issue. And there was some discussion[1] about
why mutex is needed. But I really have not thought about why we can
not use spinlock only, since using mutex only leads to the issue we
are seeing here, and using spinlock in enable/disable and mutex in
rate/parent will not work, because the mxs clocks have enable/disable
and rate/parent functions access the same register. I know it's not
good to hold spinlock in rate/parent functions for a long time, but
do we have a way around rather than using spinlock for both sets of
functions?
--
Regards,
Shawn
[1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/137282
--
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