From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: skannan@codeaurora.org (Saravana Kannan) Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:53:43 -0800 Subject: Locking in the clk API In-Reply-To: <20110121093218.GB13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <201101111016.42819.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> <20110111031552.GJ3760@linux-sh.org> <4D3862DB.5000708@fluff.org> <20110120185617.GI6335@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D3907BD.4040900@codeaurora.org> <20110121093218.GB13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <4D3A38A7.5000807@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/21/2011 01:32 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:12:45PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> In my opinion, the only major reason for needing atomic clk APIs was due >> to device_ops->suspend being atomic. Since that's not the case anymore, >> I really don't see a justification for atomic clocks. Sure, I might have >> missed some exceptions, but in that case we should make the atomic APIs >> an exception (add clk_enable_atomic) and not the norm. > > The suspend method has never been atomic. It has always been able to > sleep. You're mistaken. I distinctly remember trying to do sleeping stuff inside a .suspend function and have it complain that it's atomic. So, I think you might be mistaken. But I will have to back up my claims. Let me trying to find that info. In the end, one of us will learn something new -- which is good and all that matters. -Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.