Locking in the clk API
jeremy.kerr at canonical.com
Tue Jan 11 05:30:18 EST 2011
> No, the sleeping clock case is and always will be a corner case, and I
> have no interest in pretending otherwise. On SH we have hundreds of
> clocks that are all usable in the atomic context and perhaps less than a
> dozen that aren't (and even in those cases much of the PLL negotiation is
> handled in hardware so there's never any visibility for the lock-down
> from the software side, other architectures also have similar behaviour).
I'm not too worried about the corner-cases on the *implementation* side, more
the corner-cases on the API side: are we seeing more users of the API that
require an atomic clock, or more that don't care?
More information about the linux-arm-kernel