[PATCH v3 1/3] ARM: omap: clk: add clk_prepare and clk_unprepare

Turquette, Mike mturquette at ti.com
Mon Jul 30 20:31:23 EDT 2012

On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux at arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 03:42:13PM -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Paul Walmsley <paul at pwsan.com> wrote:
>> > So if we make a change like this one, it seems like we would basically
>> > expect it to break once we start doing anything meaningful with
>> > clk_prepare(), like using clk_prepare() for voltage scaling or something
>> > that requires I2C?  We'd also probably want to mark this with some kind of
>> > "HACK" comment.
>> Hi Paul,
>> Did you have anything in mind to start using clk_prepare?  I still
>> hope to get rid of it some day and replace that call with a
>> combination of clk_enable and a check like clk_enable_can_sleep.
> Don't you dare.
> We arrived at the clk_prepare()/clk_enable() split after lots of
> discussion between different platform maintainers and their
> requirements.
> Shoving crap like "clk_enable_can_sleep()" down into drivers is
> totally and utterly idiotic.  We've had the situation *already*
> where some drivers can be used on some platforms but not on others
> because of differences in clk_enable() expectations.

How does having a dynamic run-time check cause a generic driver to run
on "some platforms but not on others"?

> Don't go back there.  clk_prepare() and clk_enable() are separate
> calls for a very good reason.  One is sleepable, the other can be
> called from any atomic contexts.

Two calls exist because of context differences.  But in practice they
do the same thing: cause a line to toggle at a rate.  If a run-time
check exists and the framework could handle this gracefully, why would
you still choose the split api?


More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list