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/ |