Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-134724-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Message-ID: <98005e3174d43b96e774458b37fd515f.sboyd@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20240325184204.745706-3-sboyd@kernel.org>
References: <20240325184204.745706-1-sboyd@kernel.org> <20240325184204.745706-3-sboyd@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] clk: Don't hold prepare_lock when calling kref_put()
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, patches@lists.linux.dev, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
To: Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2024 19:35:59 -0700
User-Agent: alot/0.10

Quoting Stephen Boyd (2024-03-25 11:41:56)
> 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.
>=20
> Note that we also don't call free_clk() with the prepare_lock held.
> There isn't any reason to do that.
>=20
> Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> ---

Applied to clk-fixes