From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:32:18 +0000
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API
Message-Id: <20110121093218.GB13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
List-Id: <linux-sh.vger.kernel.org>
References: <201101111016.42819.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
	<20110111031552.GJ3760@linux-sh.org> <4D3862DB.5000708@fluff.org>
	<20110120185617.GI6335@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.1101201623480.8580@xanadu.home>
	<AANLkTimwBruVgGQWs5NQG7U3PcF6RQHZ6Pd1hjxyGpcA@mail.gmail.com>
	<4D3907BD.4040900@codeaurora.org>
In-Reply-To: <4D3907BD.4040900@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org

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.