Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 11:23 +0200, Lothar WaÃmann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > Using a mutex in clk_enable()/clk_disable() is a bad idea, since that
> > > makes it impossible to call those functions in interrupt context.
> > 
> > Do we do this at the moment? I know at least one implementation of clk_enable 
> > uses a mutex for locking.
> > 
> You are probably talking about the Freescale i.MX51 kernel, that won't
> even boot, if you enable CONFIG_DEBUG_KERNEL, CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK,
> CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCKDEP and CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP.
> The mutex in the clock implementation is one of the reasons.

Regardless. Clocks generally take time to enable. I don't believe doing
clock enable/disable at hard irq context is a great idea.

If you really want to do something like that, you can always use either
threaded interrupts, or if you know your clock is off, mask & defer your
handling to a work queue yourself.

Unless we have enough case of very fast switching clocks that would
really benefit for that but from my experience, when a device can issue
interrupts, it should have its clocks on, unless it's some kind of
"wakeup" interrupt in which case it can safely be delayed.

Cheers,
Ben.

--
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/