lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:39:32PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:18:37PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:15:12PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:54:49AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > Alternatively don't force the sleep in clk_prepare (e.g. by protecting
> > > > prepare_count by a spinlock (probably enable_lock)) and call clk_prepare
> > > > before calling clk->ops->enable?
> > >
> > > That's a completely bad idea. I assume you haven't thought about this
> > > very much.
> > Right, but I thought it a bit further than you did. Like the following:
> >
> > int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
> > {
> > int ret = 0, first;
> > unsigned long flags;
> >
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&clk->enable_lock, flags);
> > if (clk->flags & CLK_BUSY) {
> > /*
> > * this must not happen, please serialize calls to
> > * clk_prepare/clk_enable
> > */
>
> How do different drivers serialize calls to clk_prepare? Are you
> really suggesting that we should have a global mutex somewhere to
> prevent this?
yeah, didn't thought about multiple consumers, so (as Jeremy suggested)
the right thing is to sleep until CLK_BUSY is cleared.

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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-01 16:21    [W:0.107 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site