Locking in the clk API

[Colin Cross]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Saravana Kannan <skannan at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> 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.

platform_driver->suspend and dev_pm_ops->suspend can sleep, but
dev_pm_ops->suspend_noirq is called after irqs are disabled and can't
sleep.  Maybe that's what you were using?