On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:10:32PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

On 09/26/2011 01:40 PM, Jamie Iles wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:33:08PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:

quoted

quoted

+static void clk_gate_set_bit(struct clk_hw *clk)
+{
+	struct clk_gate *gate = to_clk_gate(clk);
+	u32 reg;
+
+	reg = __raw_readl(gate->reg);
+	reg |= BIT(gate->bit_idx);
+	__raw_writel(reg, gate->reg);

Don't these read-mod-writes need a spinlock around it?

It's possible to have an enable bits and dividers in the same register.
If you did a set_rate and while doing an enable/disable, there would be
a problem. Also, it may be 2 different clocks in the same register, so
the spinlock needs to be shared and not per clock.

Well the prepare lock will be held here and I believe that would be 
sufficient.

No, the enable spinlock is protecting enable/disable. But set_rate is
protected by the prepare mutex. So you clearly don't need locking if you
have a register of only 1 bit enables. If you have a register accessed
by both enable/disable and prepare/unprepare/set_rate, then you need
some protection.

OK fair point, but I would guess that if you had a clock like this then 
you probably wouldn't use this simple gated clock would you?  (speaking 
from my world where we have quite simple clocks ;-))

Jamie