On 01/21/2011 06:24 PM, Colin Cross wrote:

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Saravana Kannan[off-list ref]  wrote:

quoted

On 01/21/2011 01:32 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:12:45PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:

quoted

In my opinion, the only major reason for needing atomic clk APIs was due
to device_ops->suspend being atomic. Since that's not the case anymore,
I really don't see a justification for atomic clocks. Sure, I might have
missed some exceptions, but in that case we should make the atomic APIs
an exception (add clk_enable_atomic) and not the norm.

The suspend method has never been atomic.  It has always been able to
sleep.  You're mistaken.

I distinctly remember trying to do sleeping stuff inside a .suspend function
and have it complain that it's atomic. So, I think you might be mistaken.
But I will have to back up my claims. Let me trying to find that info. In
the end, one of us will learn something new -- which is good and all that
matters.

platform_driver->suspend and dev_pm_ops->suspend can sleep, but
dev_pm_ops->suspend_noirq is called after irqs are disabled and can't
sleep.  Maybe that's what you were using?

The stuff I did was before suspend_noirq was added. Well, at least the 
struct that I was filling up had no suspend_noirq.

-Saravana

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.