Re: Locking in the clk API
From: Saravana Kannan
Date: Thu Jan 27 2011 - 15:30:46 EST
On 01/27/2011 12:54 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:34:20PM -0800, Saravana Kannan wrote:
I'm not too familiar with serial/tty, does anyone know if the
.set_termios needs to be atmoic? If not, we could just change
cpm_uart/cpm_uart_core.c to use mutex instead of spinlock.
The locking is there to protect against the interrupt handler accessing
the port->* stuff (which seems to have been forgotten by the cpm driver).
I don't see any reason why clk_set_rate() needs to be under the spinlock
there - we need the reprogramming of the baud rate within the spinlock
on 8250 because of DLAB bit hiding the data registers. It's also a good
idea that it _is_ within the spinlock along with uart_update_timeout()
to ensure timeouts and the baud rate are updated together.
For internal tree purposes, does .set_termios need to be atomic? Can it
grab mutexes instead of spinlock?
Going back to the topic, how about CPU freq drivers possibly using
clk_set_rate() to change freq? Do you think that's not the case or a
Do any one of your mach's control CPU freq using clk_set_rate() and does
it need to be atomic? CPUfreq doesn't need it to be atomic. So, you will
need clk_set_rate() to be atomic only if you try to use it to lower CPU
freq very late during idle/suspend.
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
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/