Messages in this thread | | | From | Marek Vasut <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] MXS: Convert mutexes in clock.c to spinlocks | Date | Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:43:49 +0100 |
| |
> > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 10:05:25PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 09:54:25PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote: > > > > > > So, in summary, you have everything you require to fix it outside > > > > > > the driver. You just have to decide which of the two options you > > > > > > want to proceed with, and actually (and finally) do it instead of > > > > > > endlessly procrastinating and waiting for more and more bug > > > > > > reports (which is exactly what has happened so far.) > > > > > > > > > > What the hell, I just recently found this bug and I submitted a > > > > > patch right away! What are you complaining about?! > > > > > > > > If you want to take that attitude to my attempt to help you > > > > understand the problem and see solutions, I'll ignore you > > > > permanently for being an absolute twit. > > > > > > Go ahead, but you accused me of procrastinating and waiting even if the > > > first thing I did when I saw the bug was start solving it. That's just > > > insane! > > > > > > > I'm not going to spend time giving a detailed explaination > > > > about the background and options over something to only then have it > > > > immediately shoved back in my face with such a response. > > > > > > I consider my response to the last part of your email appropriate. > > > > Sorry, it wasn't directed personally at you, but to the entire MXS > > > community. The facts over this are: > Ah! I'm sorry I was so direct and rude too. I was unaware it was discussed > before, I started this effort on my own just recently. > > > 1. This problem has been known about since October. > > I was really away from the kernel community for a while so I didn't know. > > > 2. It's been discussed several times - every time along the same lines. > > 3. There is zero apparant progress on the issue. > > > > Here's two of the discussions over it, where I've said exactly the same > > thing: > > > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/thread/20111018.173744.46c4bd76.en.h > > tm l > > http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/thread/20111123.183640.222b05cf.en.h > > t ml > > > > So now, tell me - is this _finally_ going to get fixed in the MXS code, > > or is the previous discussion about converting stuff to spinlocks etc > > just going to be repeated yet again? > > Spinlocks are OK as far as the code within them is fast, right ? But hm ... > actually, we might be able to toggle the clock in one instruction by using > the bitwise set/clear registers. That way, we won't need the locks at all, > but we'd loose the usecount ... which is useless anyway). > > M
I see ... clk_set_rate() can be slow. OK, looking further into it.
| |