lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] MXS: Convert mutexes in clock.c to spinlocks
    Date
    > > 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.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-12-19 22:47    [W:0.310 / U:60.640 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site