Thread (128 messages) flat view 128 messages, 19 authors, 2011-04-20

Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare

From: Saravana Kannan <hidden>
Date: 2011-02-01 20:33:13
Also in: linux-sh, lkml

On 02/01/2011 07:24 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
A simpler way to write this is:

int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
{
	int ret = 0;

	mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
	if (clk->prepared == 0)
		ret = clk->ops->prepare(clk);
	if (ret == 0)
		clk->prepared++;
	mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);

	return ret;
}

I think we want to take a common mutex not only for clk_prepare(), but
also for clk_set_rate().  If prepare() is waiting for a PLL to lock,
we don't want a set_rate() interfering with that.
Looks like this is the best acknowledgment/response I can expect to get 
from Russell on this point that I raised.

Jeremy,

When you update the comments/doc to indicate clk_prepare/unprepare is 
not atomic, can you also update the comment for set_rate() and mark it 
as non-atomic?

Thanks for starting this thread. My efforts to reignite the other thread 
didn't go anywhere. Glad to see it's moving forward.
I'd also be tempted at this stage to build-in a no-op dummy clock,
that being the NULL clk:
[snip]
as we have various platforms defining a dummy struct clk as a way of
satisfying various driver requirements.  These dummy clocks are exactly
that - they're complete no-ops.
Unrelated to this thread, but I Ack this request too.

-Saravana

-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help