From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:18:46 +0100 Subject: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare In-Reply-To: <20110201143932.GK31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <201102011711.31258.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> <20110201105449.GY1147@pengutronix.de> <20110201131512.GH31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110201141837.GA1147@pengutronix.de> <20110201143932.GK31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110201151846.GD1147@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 02:39:32PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:18:37PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 01:15:12PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 11:54:49AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > > > Alternatively don't force the sleep in clk_prepare (e.g. by protecting > > > > prepare_count by a spinlock (probably enable_lock)) and call clk_prepare > > > > before calling clk->ops->enable? > > > > > > That's a completely bad idea. I assume you haven't thought about this > > > very much. > > Right, but I thought it a bit further than you did. Like the following: > > > > int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk) > > { > > int ret = 0, first; > > unsigned long flags; > > > > spin_lock_irqsave(&clk->enable_lock, flags); > > if (clk->flags & CLK_BUSY) { > > /* > > * this must not happen, please serialize calls to > > * clk_prepare/clk_enable > > */ > > How do different drivers serialize calls to clk_prepare? Are you > really suggesting that we should have a global mutex somewhere to > prevent this? yeah, didn't thought about multiple consumers, so (as Jeremy suggested) the right thing is to sleep until CLK_BUSY is cleared. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |