From: ben-linux@fluff.org (Ben Dooks)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:25:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100613222512.GE31045@fluff.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19473.61547.684572.647641@ipc1.ka-ro>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > > +static inline int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!clk->ops->enable)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
> > > > + if (!clk->enable_count)
> > > > + ret = clk->ops->enable(clk);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!ret)
> > > > + clk->enable_count++;
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);
> > > > +
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +}
> > >
> Using a mutex in clk_enable()/clk_disable() is a bad idea, since that
> makes it impossible to call those functions in interrupt context.
I think that is a bad idea, unless you can provide otherwise. These
calls can sleep depending on implementation, and thus I would like to
ensure that they are marked as might-sleep.
Is there any specific reason? If so, we need to add some form of ops
where we have _nosleep specificially for this case.
--
Ben (ben at fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/)
'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
To: Lothar Wa?mann <LW@KARO-electronics.de>
Cc: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
Ben Herrenchmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 23:25:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100613222512.GE31045@fluff.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <19473.61547.684572.647641@ipc1.ka-ro>
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > > +static inline int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!clk->ops->enable)
> > > > + return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
> > > > + if (!clk->enable_count)
> > > > + ret = clk->ops->enable(clk);
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!ret)
> > > > + clk->enable_count++;
> > > > + mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);
> > > > +
> > > > + return ret;
> > > > +}
> > >
> Using a mutex in clk_enable()/clk_disable() is a bad idea, since that
> makes it impossible to call those functions in interrupt context.
I think that is a bad idea, unless you can provide otherwise. These
calls can sleep depending on implementation, and thus I would like to
ensure that they are marked as might-sleep.
Is there any specific reason? If so, we need to add some form of ops
where we have _nosleep specificially for this case.
--
Ben (ben@fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/)
'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-13 22:25 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 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
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 [this message]
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
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
-- 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=20100613222512.GE31045@fluff.org.uk \
--to=ben-linux@fluff.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.