public inbox for linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-spi@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	<sboyd@codeaurora.org>, <broonie@kernel.org>, <wsa@the-dreams.de>
Subject: Re: Handling clocks on external busses
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:58:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151202125855.GB6058@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151124173718.GK18889@ck-lbox>

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 05:37:18PM +0000, Charles Keepax wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> When a clock driver is controlling a clock that is controlled
> over I2C / SPI, we need to perform a write on that bus to enable
> the clock. However, such busses often have their own clocks that
> must be enabled. Since all clock prepares are controlled under
> one large mutex this easily causes deadlock. The device is
> waiting for the I2C / SPI write to complete and the I2C / SPI
> driver is waiting for the clock prepare lock to be released so it
> can enable its own clock.
> 
> I have had a bit of a search and it seems the only really advice
> kicking about is that all I2C / SPI drivers should leave the
> clock prepared all the time. Is that intended to be the long term
> solution, should I treat not leaving the clock prepared as a bug?
> 
> Thanks,
> Charles

Adding a few more people for visibility.

So after a bit more digging it seems this has been mitigated slightly
as a lot of SPI driver have been updated to execute transfers in
thread rather than from a worker thread and it seems the clock
framework lets you re-enter the locked sections if called from the
same thread.

I am looking at moving some (in mainline) clocking code into an actual
clocking driver (for a SPI/I2C audio CODEC) but I am rather nervous
about this causing problems for customers with random deadlocks.

I guess the naive solution looks like individual locks per clock, but
from what I have been able to google it looks like there are some
challenges with that approach, does anyone have any links to previous
discussions on that? And any suggestions on how I might approach
this?

Thanks,
Charles

  reply	other threads:[~2015-12-02 12:58 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-11-24 17:37 Handling clocks on external busses Charles Keepax
2015-12-02 12:58 ` Charles Keepax [this message]
2015-12-02 13:30   ` Mark Brown
2016-04-04  9:57   ` Charles Keepax

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=20151202125855.GB6058@localhost.localdomain \
    --to=ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
    --cc=broonie@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-clk@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-spi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mturquette@baylibre.com \
    --cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
    --cc=wsa@the-dreams.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox