lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 24 May 2011 09:48:12 +0530
Fromviresh kumar <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] clk: Add a generic clock infrastructure
On 05/20/2011 12:57 PM, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(enable_lock);
> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(prepare_lock);

Probably all clocks can be handled separately, i.e. single lock for all
of them will make system slower. Suppose i want to enable UART's clock
then why should spi code be waiting for the lock.
So, we should have per clk lock.

<...>

> +struct clk *clk_register(struct clk_hw_ops *ops, struct clk_hw *hw,
> + const char *name)
> +{
> + struct clk *clk;
> +
> + clk = kzalloc(sizeof(*clk), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!clk)
> + return NULL;
> +
> + clk->name = name;
> + clk->ops = ops;
> + clk->hw = hw;
> + hw->clk = clk;
> +
> + /* Query the hardware for parent and initial rate */
> +

Can remove this blank line.

> + if (clk->ops->get_parent)
> + /* We don't to lock against prepare/enable here, as
> + * the clock is not yet accessible from anywhere */

Shouldn't we use following style for multi-line comments.
/*
* ....
*/
> + clk->parent = clk->ops->get_parent(clk->hw);
> +
> + if (clk->ops->recalc_rate)
> + clk->rate = clk->ops->recalc_rate(clk->hw);
> +
> +

Can remove one of these blank lines.

--
viresh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-24 06:21    [from the cache]
©2003-2010