[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130315171200.GN4977@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:12:00 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
Cc: Bill Huang <bilhuang@...dia.com>,
Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@...dia.com>,
"mturquette@...aro.org" <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"patches@...aro.org" <patches@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/1] clk: Add notifier support in
clk_prepare_enable/clk_disable_unprepare
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:22:47PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> Is clk_set_rate() only legal to call in non-atomic contexts then? The
> header file doesn't say, although I guess since many other functions
> explicitly say they can't, then by omission it can...
I think when all this was discussed alongside the clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
stuff, that yes, it was decided that clk_set_rate() was non-atomic only.
And yes, that is most definitely the case, because the first thing
clk_set_rate() does is take a mutex - which will trigger a might_sleep()
complaint if ever called from an atomic context.
--
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