Re: Locking in the clk API

[Uwe Kleine-König]

Hi Russell,

On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 02:53:58PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> We've been around returning EAGAIN, WARN_ONs, BUG_ONs, having clk_enable()
> vs clk_enable_atomic(), clk_enable_cansleep() vs clk_enable(), etc.
> 
> There's been a lot of talk on this issue for ages with no real progress
> that I'm just going to repeat: let's unify those implementations which
> use a spinlock for their clks into one consolidated solution, and
> a separate consolidated solution for those which use a mutex.
> 
> This will at least allow us to have _some_ consolidation of the existing
> implementations - and it doesn't add anything to the problem at hand.
> It might actually help identify what can be done at code level to resolve
> this issue.
Great, so how should we do it?  Take Jeremy's patch and make the
differenciation between sleeping and atomic implementation a Kconfig
variable?

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/