From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Saravana Kannan Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 03:29:39 +0000 Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API Message-Id: <4D423823.4070009@codeaurora.org> List-Id: References: <201101111744.59712.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> <20110111103929.GN24920@pengutronix.de> <4D386ABF.9060908@fluff.org> <20110120190822.GK6335@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D3932B4.8010904@codeaurora.org> <20110121094042.GD13235@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D40F5CC.6080809@codeaurora.org> <20110127085438.GA25239@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D41D5EC.6030405@codeaurora.org> <20110127204354.GB1597@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110127210729.79eef2c1@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20110127210729.79eef2c1@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 01/27/2011 01:07 PM, Alan Cox wrote: >>> For internal tree purposes, does .set_termios need to be atomic? Can it >>> grab mutexes instead of spinlock? >> >> I think I already answered that question above where I said "protect >> against the interrupt handler accessing the port->* stuff". > > I'm not sure you answered it correctly however as the locking nowdays is > a bit different. > > Architecturally the termios handling doesn't need a spin lock nor is it > called under one. In fact it's vital this is the case because of USB. Thanks for the clarification Alan. This is what I was looking for. -Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.