[lkml]   [2014]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC V2] cpufreq: make sure frequency transitions are serialized
On 03/19/2014 02:50 PM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 19 March 2014 14:47, Srivatsa S. Bhat
> <> wrote:
>> Wait, I think I remember. The problem was about dealing with drivers that
>> do asynchronous notification (those that have the ASYNC_NOTIFICATION flag
>> set). In particular, exynos-5440 driver sends out the POSTCHANGE notification
>> from a workqueue worker, much later than sending the PRECHANGE notification.
>> From what I saw, this is how the exynos-5440 driver works:
>> 1. ->target() is invoked, and the driver writes to a register and returns
>> to its caller.
>> 2. An interrupt occurs that indicates that the frequency was changed.
>> 3. The interrupt handler kicks off a worker thread which then sends out
>> the POSTCHANGE notification.
> Correct!!
>> So the important question here is, how does the exynos-5440 driver
>> protect itself from say 2 ->target() calls which occur in close sequence
>> (before allowing the entire chain for the first call to complete)?
>> As far as I can see there is no such synchronization in the driver at
>> the moment. Adding Amit to CC for his comments.
> Yes, and that's what my patch is trying to fix. Where is the confusion?

Sorry, for a moment I got confused and thought that your patch addresses
the race conditions present in normal drivers alone, and not ASYNC_NOTIFICATION
drivers. But now I understand that your patch intends to fix both the
problems at once. I'll share my thoughts about the design in a separate

Srivatsa S. Bhat

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-03-19 11:21    [W:0.047 / U:13.544 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site