Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:03:31 +0100 | From | Uwe Kleine-König <> | Subject | Re: Locking in the clk API |
| |
Hi Russell,
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 02:53:58PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > We've been around returning EAGAIN, WARN_ONs, BUG_ONs, having clk_enable() > vs clk_enable_atomic(), clk_enable_cansleep() vs clk_enable(), etc. > > There's been a lot of talk on this issue for ages with no real progress > that I'm just going to repeat: let's unify those implementations which > use a spinlock for their clks into one consolidated solution, and > a separate consolidated solution for those which use a mutex. > > This will at least allow us to have _some_ consolidation of the existing > implementations - and it doesn't add anything to the problem at hand. > It might actually help identify what can be done at code level to resolve > this issue. Great, so how should we do it? Take Jeremy's patch and make the differenciation between sleeping and atomic implementation a Kconfig variable?
Best regards Uwe
-- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |