From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jamie@jamieiles.com (Jamie Iles)
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:37:33 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2 4/7] clk: Add simple gated clock
In-Reply-To: <4E80CE28.9030103@gmail.com>
References: <1316730422-20027-1-git-send-email-mturquette@ti.com>
	<1316730422-20027-5-git-send-email-mturquette@ti.com>
	<4E80C564.3050004@gmail.com> <20110926184024.GB9194@gallagher>
	<4E80CE28.9030103@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20110926193733.GC9194@gallagher>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:10:32PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 09/26/2011 01:40 PM, Jamie Iles wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:33:08PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> >>> +static void clk_gate_set_bit(struct clk_hw *clk)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct clk_gate *gate = to_clk_gate(clk);
> >>> +	u32 reg;
> >>> +
> >>> +	reg = __raw_readl(gate->reg);
> >>> +	reg |= BIT(gate->bit_idx);
> >>> +	__raw_writel(reg, gate->reg);
> >>
> >> Don't these read-mod-writes need a spinlock around it?
> >>
> >> It's possible to have an enable bits and dividers in the same register.
> >> If you did a set_rate and while doing an enable/disable, there would be
> >> a problem. Also, it may be 2 different clocks in the same register, so
> >> the spinlock needs to be shared and not per clock.
> > 
> > Well the prepare lock will be held here and I believe that would be 
> > sufficient.
> 
> No, the enable spinlock is protecting enable/disable. But set_rate is
> protected by the prepare mutex. So you clearly don't need locking if you
> have a register of only 1 bit enables. If you have a register accessed
> by both enable/disable and prepare/unprepare/set_rate, then you need
> some protection.

OK fair point, but I would guess that if you had a clock like this then 
you probably wouldn't use this simple gated clock would you?  (speaking 
from my world where we have quite simple clocks ;-))

Jamie