[PATCH RFC] clk: add support for automatic parent handling

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 02:19:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The per clk locking is not going to work ever except you want to have
> the trylock dance if you need to propagate changes up the tree and
> down the tree. So yes, we need per tree locking and I can see the need
> for the mutex and the spinlock to protect the tree, but you really
> want to have the logic dealing with those locks and how they both
> protect the tree in common code and not in some random place.

rotfl.  "per tree locking".  That's farsical when you have muxes which
select between different distinct trees.  That _surely_ is the path to
locking mayhem, because the child clocks can have their lock changed
beneath them as the mux changes its parent.

I still think you're in a different universe.