| Date | Fri, 4 Feb 2011 13:20:40 +0000 | From | Russell King - ARM Linux <> | Subject | Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare |
| |
On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 08:45:34PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > > == Implementation == > > > > Basically: > > > > struct clk { > > const struct clk_ops *ops > > int enable_count; > > spinlock_t enable_lock; > > int prepare_count; > > struct mutex prepare_lock; > > }; > > > > int clk_enable(struct clk *clk) > > { > > int ret = 0; > > > > spin_lock(&clk->enable_lock); > > if (!clk->enable_count) > > ret = clk->ops->enable(clk); > > > > if (!ret) > > clk->enable_count++; > > spin_unlock(&clk->enable_lock); > > > > return ret; > > } > Why do we not call parent's clk_enable in this function? For flexible? How many > different cases is causing us to move the effert to platform clock driver?
You may notice that struct clk above doesn't have a parent.
|