Hi Rajendra, Todd,

On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Rajendra Nayak wrote:

Paul/Benoit any thoughts on if a per-clkdm lock seems reasonable?

Sounds okay to me.

The experimental patch that you sent didn't add the locking to the *wkdep, 
*sleepdep functions; I guess we'd better add it there at the same time, 
since some of the register access there does a read-modify-write.

It should be possible to get rid of the atomic_t usage in the clockdomain 
code as part of the same series.

Todd, thanks for pointing this out.


- Paul