From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jk@ozlabs.org (Jeremy Kerr)
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:19:44 +0800
Subject: Locking in the clk API
In-Reply-To: <201101111016.42819.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
References: <201101111016.42819.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
Message-ID: <201101170919.45100.jk@ozlabs.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi all,

Based on the discussion from this thread, my plan is to:

* Change the 'common struct clk' patches to only use a spinlock for locking. 
This means that clk_{en,dis}able will acquire a per-clk spinlock (for enable 
counts), and be callable from atomic contexts.

* Rework the initial docs (posted in the first mail of this thread) document 
to illustrate the new locking requirements.

* Request input from the platforms that require clk_enable (etc) to sleep, 
about how we can merge the two implementations.

Russell - is this OK?

Cheers,


Jeremy