Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-117449-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240325054403.592298-1-sboyd@kernel.org> <20240325054403.592298-3-sboyd@kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20240325054403.592298-3-sboyd@kernel.org>
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:19:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=Wu_SuLcHYQ1bLC-zhV1FnoFor84t-=EERT9mnDdm5Q2A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] clk: Don't hold prepare_lock when calling kref_put()
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, 
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Sun, Mar 24, 2024 at 10:44=E2=80=AFPM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wr=
ote:
>
> We don't need to hold the prepare_lock when dropping a ref on a struct
> clk_core. The release function is only freeing memory and any code with
> a pointer reference has already unlinked anything pointing to the
> clk_core. This reduces the holding area of the prepare_lock a bit.
>
> Note that we also don't call free_clk() with the prepare_lock held.
> There isn't any reason to do that.
>
> Cc: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> ---
>  drivers/clk/clk.c | 12 +++++-------
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>