From: benh@kernel.crashing.org (Benjamin Herrenschmidt)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:14:03 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1276319643.1962.181.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19474.2817.333749.485028@ipc1.ka-ro>
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 12:08 +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > > > Using a mutex in clk_enable()/clk_disable() is a bad idea, since that
> > > > > makes it impossible to call those functions in interrupt context.
> > IMHO if a device generates an irq its clock should already be on. This
> > way you don't need to enable or disable a clock in irq context.
> >
> You may want to disable a clock in the IRQ handler. The VPU driver in
> the Freescale BSP for i.MX51 does exactly this.
> Anyway I don't see any reason for using a mutex here instead of
> spin_lock_irq_save() as all other implementations do.
Because you suddenly make it impossible to sleep inside enable/disable
unless I'm mistaken about the implementation details. Some PLLs can need
milliseconds to stabilize (especially if they need to be powered up
first). Doing that with a lock held is a BAD IDEA.
Cheers,
Ben.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: "Lothar Waßmann" <LW@KARO-electronics.de>
Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
"Jeremy Kerr" <jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Ben Dooks" <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 15:14:03 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1276319643.1962.181.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19474.2817.333749.485028@ipc1.ka-ro>
On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 12:08 +0200, Lothar Waßmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > > > Using a mutex in clk_enable()/clk_disable() is a bad idea, since that
> > > > > makes it impossible to call those functions in interrupt context.
> > IMHO if a device generates an irq its clock should already be on. This
> > way you don't need to enable or disable a clock in irq context.
> >
> You may want to disable a clock in the IRQ handler. The VPU driver in
> the Freescale BSP for i.MX51 does exactly this.
> Anyway I don't see any reason for using a mutex here instead of
> spin_lock_irq_save() as all other implementations do.
Because you suddenly make it impossible to sleep inside enable/disable
unless I'm mistaken about the implementation details. Some PLLs can need
milliseconds to stabilize (especially if they need to be powered up
first). Doing that with a lock held is a BAD IDEA.
Cheers,
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-12 5:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 88+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-04 7:30 [RFC,PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v4 Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-04 7:30 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-04 7:30 ` [RFC,PATCH 2/2] clk: Generic support for fixed-rate clocks Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-04 7:30 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-04 7:30 ` [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-04 7:30 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-11 4:20 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-11 4:20 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-11 6:50 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-11 6:50 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-11 7:57 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-11 7:57 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-11 8:14 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-11 8:14 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-11 9:18 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-11 9:18 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-11 9:23 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-11 9:23 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-11 9:58 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-11 9:58 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-11 10:08 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-11 10:08 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-11 10:50 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-11 10:50 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-12 5:14 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2010-06-12 5:14 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-14 6:39 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-14 6:39 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-14 6:40 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-14 6:40 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-14 6:52 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-14 6:52 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-14 9:34 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-14 9:34 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-16 21:14 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-16 21:14 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-16 21:13 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-16 21:13 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-14 9:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-14 9:22 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-14 9:30 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-14 9:30 ` Lothar Waßmann
2010-06-14 9:43 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-14 9:43 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-16 21:16 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-16 21:16 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-16 23:33 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-16 23:33 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-13 22:27 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-13 22:27 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-11 14:11 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-11 14:11 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2010-06-12 5:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-12 5:12 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-12 5:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-12 5:10 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-06-13 22:25 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-13 22:25 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-13 22:23 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-13 22:23 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-14 3:10 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-14 3:10 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-09-10 2:10 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-09-10 2:10 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-14 10:18 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-14 10:18 ` Jeremy Kerr
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-06-02 11:56 [RFC,PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v3 Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-02 11:56 ` [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-02 11:56 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-02 12:03 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-02 12:03 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-03 3:21 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-03 3:21 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-03 8:13 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-03 8:13 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-03 10:24 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-03 10:24 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-03 11:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-06-03 11:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-06-04 0:06 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-04 0:06 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-04 1:43 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-04 1:43 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-04 1:40 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-04 1:40 ` Jeremy Kerr
2010-06-03 21:09 ` Ryan Mallon
2010-06-03 21:09 ` Ryan Mallon
2010-06-03 23:45 ` Ben Dooks
2010-06-03 23:45 ` Ben Dooks
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1276319643.1962.181.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.