Messages in this thread | | | From | Jeremy Kerr <> | Subject | Re: Locking in the clk API | Date | Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:30:18 +0800 |
| |
Hi Paul,
> No, the sleeping clock case is and always will be a corner case, and I > have no interest in pretending otherwise. On SH we have hundreds of > clocks that are all usable in the atomic context and perhaps less than a > dozen that aren't (and even in those cases much of the PLL negotiation is > handled in hardware so there's never any visibility for the lock-down > from the software side, other architectures also have similar behaviour).
I'm not too worried about the corner-cases on the *implementation* side, more the corner-cases on the API side: are we seeing more users of the API that require an atomic clock, or more that don't care?
Cheers,
Jeremy
| |