[RFC,PATCH 1/3] Add a common struct clk
Russell King - ARM Linux
linux at arm.linux.org.uk
Sun Feb 20 08:13:09 EST 2011
On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 09:33:03PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
> Assuming Russell and/or the community agrees on the semantics of
> "parent", without the generic implementation grabbing the prepare_lock
> while setting the parent, there is no way for the specific clock driver
> implementations to cleanly ensure correctness. The only option for them
> would be to peek into the generic clock struct and grab the prepare lock
> -- to me that would be an ugly hack and/or layering violation that would
> cause problems later on.
>
> Russell/All,
>
> What's the meaning of a parent clock? Do you agree with my definition --
> "the parent clock is the clock that generates the clock signal from
> which the child clock derives (divide, etc) it's clock signal from."? Or
> is it open to interpretation by each implementation?
Your definition seems sane - I'm not sure what use a parent clock which
had nothing to do with a child would be.
As for the locking issue, I've no idea on that at the moment. I don't
think implementations should grab the prepare lock, I think that's
something the generic code should take care of for clk_set_rate(),
clk_set_parent() etc.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list