[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1514584997.2743.107.camel@kernel.crashing.org>
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2017 09:03:17 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Andrew Jeffery <andrew@...id.au>, Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>,
Rick Altherr <raltherr@...gle.com>,
Ryan Chen <ryan_chen@...eedtech.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] clk: aspeed: Register gated clocks
On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 17:32 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > I noticed we do have a few i2c based clock drivers... how are they ever
> > supposed to work ? i2c bus controllers are allowed to sleep and the i2c
> > core takes mutexes...
>
> We have clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare() for sleeping suckage. You
> can use that, and i2c based clk drivers do that today.
"suckage" ? Hehe ... the suckage should rather be stuff that cannot
sleep. Arbitrary latencies and jitter caused by too much code wanting
to be "atomic" when unnecessary are a bad thing.
In the case of clocks like the aspeed where we have to wait for a
rather long stabilization delay, way too long to legitimately do a non-
sleepable delay with a lock held, do we need to do everything in
prepare() then ?
Ben.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists