Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
Uwe Kleine-König
u.kleine-koenig at pengutronix.de
Tue Feb 1 14:32:01 EST 2011
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 05:06:37PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:53:44PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:24:58PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:18:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König 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 = 0;
> > >
> > > mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
> > > if (clk->prepared == 0)
> > > ret = clk->ops->prepare(clk);
> > > if (ret == 0)
> > > clk->prepared++;
> > > mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);
> > >
> > > return ret;
> > > }
> > But you cannot call this in atomic context when you know the clock is
> > already prepared.
>
> So? You're not _supposed_ to call it from any atomic context ever.
My motivation for a more complicated clk_prepare was to make clk_prepare
atomic when that's possible (i.e. when the clk is already prepared) and
call it before the enable callback in clk_enable. Then everything
behaves nicely even if clk_enable is called from atomic context provided
that the clock was prepared before (or doesn't need to).
If a driver writer doesn't know that a certain clock might need to sleep
at some point he runs into an atomic might_sleep with your approach and
with mine.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list