From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752940Ab1AOPDw (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:03:52 -0500 Received: from metis.ext.pengutronix.de ([92.198.50.35]:37876 "EHLO metis.ext.pengutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752799Ab1AOPDv (ORCPT ); Sat, 15 Jan 2011 10:03:51 -0500 Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 16:03:31 +0100 From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Christer Weinigel , Saravana Kannan , Jeremy Kerr , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Vincent Guittot , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Ben Herrenschmidt , Sascha Hauer , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API Message-ID: <20110115150331.GB6917@pengutronix.de> References: <201101111016.42819.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> <20110111091607.GI12552@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D2D184A.8020405@codeaurora.org> <20110112090301.GS11039@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D31A8F1.4080301@weinigel.se> <20110115145358.GC15996@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20110115145358.GC15996@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 2001:6f8:1178:2:215:17ff:fe12:23b0 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ukl@pengutronix.de X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on metis.ext.pengutronix.de); SAEximRunCond expanded to false X-PTX-Original-Recipient: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Russell, On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 02:53:58PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > We've been around returning EAGAIN, WARN_ONs, BUG_ONs, having clk_enable() > vs clk_enable_atomic(), clk_enable_cansleep() vs clk_enable(), etc. > > There's been a lot of talk on this issue for ages with no real progress > that I'm just going to repeat: let's unify those implementations which > use a spinlock for their clks into one consolidated solution, and > a separate consolidated solution for those which use a mutex. > > This will at least allow us to have _some_ consolidation of the existing > implementations - and it doesn't add anything to the problem at hand. > It might actually help identify what can be done at code level to resolve > this issue. Great, so how should we do it? Take Jeremy's patch and make the differenciation between sleeping and atomic implementation a Kconfig variable? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |