[PATCH 4/8] OMAP2+: PM: idle clkdms only if already in idle

[Rajendra Nayak]

Hi Paul,

On 6/26/2011 11:34 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> Hi Rajendra, Todd,
>
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>
>> Paul/Benoit any thoughts on if a per-clkdm lock seems reasonable?
>
> Sounds okay to me.
>
> The experimental patch that you sent didn't add the locking to the *wkdep,
> *sleepdep functions; I guess we'd better add it there at the same time,
> since some of the register access there does a read-modify-write.

My initial idea was to just guard the functions which program the
target clockdomain state, since that's something which had a possibility
of racing.
For the sleepdep/wkupdep programming, I thought they are all done from
within frameworks and during pm-core init at boot and might not run into
concurrency issues. But maybe it makes sense to guard those as well.

>
> It should be possible to get rid of the atomic_t usage in the clockdomain
> code as part of the same series.

Sure, I'll get rid of those.

Thanks,
Rajendra

>
> Todd, thanks for pointing this out.
>
>
> - Paul