[PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
Jeremy Kerr
jeremy.kerr at canonical.com
Thu Jan 6 19:10:20 EST 2011
Hi Richard,
> > > +struct clk {
> > > + const struct clk_ops *ops;
> > > + unsigned int enable_count;
> > > + int flags;
> > > + union {
> > > + struct mutex mutex;
> > > + spinlock_t spinlock;
> > > + } lock;
> > > +};
> >
> > Here you have a "polymorphic" lock, where the clock instance knows
> > which type it is supposed to be. I got flak from David Miller and
> >
> > others trying to do the same thing with the mdio_bus:
> > http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/linux-netdev/2010/7/6/6280618
> >
> > The criticism, applied to your case, is that the clk_enable() caller
> > cannot know whether it is safe to make the call or not. I was told,
> > "there has got to be a better way."
>
> Note that this is not "new". Currently there is no convention available
> if clk_enable sleeps or not. See e.g.
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/100744
As Uwe says, the common clock does not change these semantics; I would prefer
to keep the driver API changes at a minimum with these patches.
But yes, it would be a good idea to:
* introduce clk_enable_atomic, which requires clk->flags & CLK_ATOMIC
* add might_sleep to clk_enable(), encouraging clk uses in atomic contexts
to switch to clk_enable_atomic.
We'd still be able to handle CLK_ATOMIC clocks in clk_enable(), so the
enforcement only needs to be one-way.
However, I think these would be better as separate changes.
Cheers,
Jeremy
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list