Locking in the clk API

Saravana Kannan skannan at codeaurora.org
Fri Jan 21 20:53:43 EST 2011

On 01/21/2011 01:32 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 08:12:45PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>> In my opinion, the only major reason for needing atomic clk APIs was due
>> to device_ops->suspend being atomic. Since that's not the case anymore,
>> I really don't see a justification for atomic clocks. Sure, I might have
>> missed some exceptions, but in that case we should make the atomic APIs
>> an exception (add clk_enable_atomic) and not the norm.
> The suspend method has never been atomic.  It has always been able to
> sleep.  You're mistaken.

I distinctly remember trying to do sleeping stuff inside a .suspend 
function and have it complain that it's atomic. So, I think you might be 
mistaken. But I will have to back up my claims. Let me trying to find 
that info. In the end, one of us will learn something new -- which is 
good and all that matters.


Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list