Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 15 Jan 2011 15:15:07 +0000 | From | Russell King - ARM Linux <> | Subject | Re: Locking in the clk API |
| |
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 04:03:31PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > 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?
No - I've been suggesting for about a week now about doing two entirely separate consolidations.
I think it would be insane to do the consolidation of the two different implementations in one patch or even one patch set. There needs to be a consolidation of spinlock-based clks as one patch set, which is entirely separate and independent from the consolidation of mutex-based clks.
What if one of the consolidations turns out to be a problem? Do we want to throw both out, or do we want to keep as much as we possibly can? -- 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/
| |