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

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 12:08 +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.
> > IMHO if a device generates an irq its clock should already be on.  This
> > way you don't need to enable or disable a clock in irq context.
> >  
> You may want to disable a clock in the IRQ handler. The VPU driver in
> the Freescale BSP for i.MX51 does exactly this.
> Anyway I don't see any reason for using a mutex here instead of
> spin_lock_irq_save() as all other implementations do.

Because you suddenly make it impossible to sleep inside enable/disable
unless I'm mistaken about the implementation details. Some PLLs can need
milliseconds to stabilize (especially if they need to be powered up
first). Doing that with a lock held is a BAD IDEA.

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/