Message-ID: <19477.53673.644128.558827@ipc1.ka-ro>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 08:52:25 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Lothar_Wa=DFmann?= <LW@KARO-electronics.de>
To: Uwe =?iso-8859-15?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
       Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>,
       linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk
In-Reply-To: <20100614064028.GA12159@pengutronix.de>
References: <1275636608.606606.450179637764.0.gpush@pororo>
	<201006111557.12249.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
	<19473.61547.684572.647641@ipc1.ka-ro>
	<201006111718.47426.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
	<19474.172.742782.972629@ipc1.ka-ro>
	<20100611095839.GC10894@pengutronix.de>
	<19474.2817.333749.485028@ipc1.ka-ro>
	<1276319643.1962.181.camel@pasglop>
	<19477.52889.982995.407051@ipc1.ka-ro>
	<20100614064028.GA12159@pengutronix.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2405
Lines: 62

Hi,

Uwe Kleine-K?nig writes:
> Hello Lothar,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 08:39:21AM +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt writes:
> > > On Fri, 2010-06-11 at 12:08 +0200, Lothar Wa?mann 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
> >               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > ???
> > All implementations so far use spin_lock_irq_save()!
> > 
> > How would you be able to sleep with a mutex held?
> > If you hold a lock you must not sleep, no matter what sort of lock it
> > is.
> That's wrong.  With a mutex hold you may sleep.
> 
OK, you're right. But still all other implementations (omap, mxc,
davinci,...) use spin_lock_irqsave() to protect the enable/disable
functions and don't seem to have any problem with this.
Is there any reason to change this, or make it inconsistent
for one arch?

And arch/arm/plat-s3c/clock.c has the following comment:
|/* We originally used an mutex here, but some contexts (see resume)
| * are calling functions such as clk_set_parent() with IRQs disabled
| * causing an BUG to be triggered.
| */
|DEFINE_SPINLOCK(clocks_lock);


Lothar Wa?mann
-- 
___________________________________________________________

Ka-Ro electronics GmbH | Pascalstra?e 22 | D - 52076 Aachen
Phone: +49 2408 1402-0 | Fax: +49 2408 1402-10
Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Matthias Kaussen
Handelsregistereintrag: Amtsgericht Aachen, HRB 4996

www.karo-electronics.de | info@karo-electronics.de
___________________________________________________________
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/