[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141108002334.GT4042@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2014 00:23:34 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Propagate prepare and enable when reparenting
orphans
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 04:14:23PM -0800, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Russell,
> I guess I'm still confused. My patch continues to be about orphans
> and I don't see the bug you are pointing to.
Ah, in which case, the question changes: how can an orphaned clock be
succesfully prepared and enabled?
Drivers expect that a clock for which clk_enable() has returned
successfully _will_ at that point be supplying the clock. If we don't
yet know it's parent, how do we know that it will be supplying that
clock?
What about a driver calling clk_set_rate() on an orphaned clock?
>From what I can see (__clk_reparent will re-set the child's clock when
reparenting) having a driver able to claim an orphaned clock, let
alone prepare and enable it, looks rather buggy to me.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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