Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751210AbeABSQL (ORCPT + 1 other); Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:16:11 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:48462 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750996AbeABSQJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Jan 2018 13:16:09 -0500 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 8573460272 Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codeaurora.org Authentication-Results: pdx-caf-mail.web.codeaurora.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=sboyd@codeaurora.org Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:16:08 -0800 From: Stephen Boyd To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Joel Stanley , Lee Jones , Michael Turquette , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Andrew Jeffery , Jeremy Kerr , Rick Altherr , Ryan Chen , Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/5] clk: aspeed: Register gated clocks Message-ID: <20180102181608.GG7997@codeaurora.org> References: <20171128071908.12279-1-joel@jms.id.au> <20171128071908.12279-5-joel@jms.id.au> <20171221233927.GE7997@codeaurora.org> <1513910191.2743.77.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <1513910633.2743.79.camel@kernel.crashing.org> <20171227013227.GV7997@codeaurora.org> <1514584997.2743.107.camel@kernel.crashing.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1514584997.2743.107.camel@kernel.crashing.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: On 12/30, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Tue, 2017-12-26 at 17:32 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > I noticed we do have a few i2c based clock drivers... how are they ever > > > supposed to work ? i2c bus controllers are allowed to sleep and the i2c > > > core takes mutexes... > > > > We have clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare() for sleeping suckage. You > > can use that, and i2c based clk drivers do that today. > > "suckage" ? Hehe ... the suckage should rather be stuff that cannot > sleep. Arbitrary latencies and jitter caused by too much code wanting > to be "atomic" when unnecessary are a bad thing. Heh. Of course. > > In the case of clocks like the aspeed where we have to wait for a > rather long stabilization delay, way too long to legitimately do a non- > sleepable delay with a lock held, do we need to do everything in > prepare() then ? > Yes. If we have to wait a long time in the enable path it makes sense to move it to the prepare path instead, if possible. That way we avoid holding a spinlock for a long time. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project