From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 15:24:58 +0000
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
Message-Id: <20110201152458.GP31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
List-Id: <linux-sh.vger.kernel.org>
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>
	<20110201151846.GD1147@pengutronix.de>
In-Reply-To: <20110201151846.GD1147@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:18:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K=F6nig wrote:
> yeah, didn't thought about multiple consumers, so (as Jeremy suggested)
> the right thing is to sleep until CLK_BUSY is cleared.

A simpler way to write this is:

int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
{
	int ret =3D 0;

	mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
	if (clk->prepared =3D 0)
		ret =3D clk->ops->prepare(clk);
	if (ret =3D 0)
		clk->prepared++;
	mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);

	return ret;
}

I think we want to take a common mutex not only for clk_prepare(), but
also for clk_set_rate().  If prepare() is waiting for a PLL to lock,
we don't want a set_rate() interfering with that.

I'd also be tempted at this stage to build-in a no-op dummy clock,
that being the NULL clk:

int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
{
	int ret =3D 0;

	if (clk) {
		mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
		if (clk->prepared =3D 0)
			ret =3D clk->ops->prepare(clk);
		if (ret =3D 0)
			clk->prepared++;
		mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);
	}

	return ret;
}

as we have various platforms defining a dummy struct clk as a way of
satisfying various driver requirements.  These dummy clocks are exactly
that - they're complete no-ops.