Thread (80 messages) 80 messages, 20 authors, 2011-01-28

Re: Locking in the clk API

From: <hidden>
Date: 2011-01-15 15:03:52
Also in: linux-arm-kernel, lkml

Hi Russell,

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 02:53:58PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
We've been around returning EAGAIN, WARN_ONs, BUG_ONs, having clk_enable()
vs clk_enable_atomic(), clk_enable_cansleep() vs clk_enable(), etc.

There's been a lot of talk on this issue for ages with no real progress
that I'm just going to repeat: let's unify those implementations which
use a spinlock for their clks into one consolidated solution, and
a separate consolidated solution for those which use a mutex.

This will at least allow us to have _some_ consolidation of the existing
implementations - and it doesn't add anything to the problem at hand.
It might actually help identify what can be done at code level to resolve
this issue.
Great, so how should we do it?  Take Jeremy's patch and make the
differenciation between sleeping and atomic implementation a Kconfig
variable?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help