Re: Locking in the clk API
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <hidden>
Date: 2011-01-21 22:03:22
Also in:
linux-arm-kernel, lkml
On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 04:53:44PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
So I think that the API must be augmented with more methods, such as:
clk_slow_enable():
- may sleep
- may be a no-op if the clk_fast_enable() is supported
clk_fast_enable():
- may not sleep, used in atomic context
- may be a no-op if controlling the clock takes time, in which case
clk_slow_enable() must have set the clock up entirely
... and similar for clk_slow_disable() and clk_fast_disable().Isn't this along the same lines as my clk_prepare() vs clk_enable() suggestion? I suggested that clk_prepare() be callable only from non-atomic contexts, and do whatever's required to ensure that the clock is available. That may end up enabling the clock as a result. clk_enable() callable from atomic contexts, and turns the clock on if the hardware supports such an operation. So, if you have something like: Xtal--->PLL--->Routing/Masking--->Device clk = clk_get() returns the clock for the device. clk_prepare(clk) would walk up the clock tree, selecting the routing and preparing each clock. Clocks prior to _and_ including the PLL would need to be enabled. clk_enable(clk) would walk up the tree if the clock isn't already enabled, calling clk_enable() on the parent clock. As we require prepared clocks to already be enabled, this automatically stops at the PLL. To encourage correct usage, we just need to make sure that clk_prepare() has a might_sleep() thing, and clk_enable() throws a fit if it's used on a clk without prepare being used first. The second point is not easy to do in a foolproof manner though, but doing _something_ is better than nothing.