Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 16:22:03 +0100
From: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
	<u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@gmail.com>,
        Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>,
        linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
        Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
        Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@google.com>,
        Saravana Kannan <skannan@codeaurora.org>,
        Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>,
        Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare
Message-ID: <20110201152203.GE1147@pengutronix.de>
References: <201102011711.31258.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
 <20110201105449.GY1147@pengutronix.de>
 <AANLkTimayMAfr+zA6uO_yUmZqsOLmJ3fiiS696mL_evn@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110201140024.GZ1147@pengutronix.de>
 <20110201151418.GN31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20110201151418.GN31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2413
Lines: 51

On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:14:18PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 03:00:24PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 10:05:56PM +0900, Jassi Brar wrote:
> > > 2011/2/1 Uwe Kleine-K?nig <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>:
> > > 
> > > .....
> > > 
> > > > Do you plan to handle the case that clk_enable is called while prepare
> > > > isn't completed (considering the special case "not called at all")?
> > > > Maybe BUG_ON(clk->ops->prepare && !clk->prepare_count)?
> > > Sounds better than the second option.
> > > 
> > > > Alternatively don't force the sleep in clk_prepare (e.g. by protecting
> > > > prepare_count by a spinlock (probably enable_lock)) and call clk_prepare
> > > > before calling clk->ops->enable?
> > > That might result in a driver working on some platforms(those have
> > > atomic clk_prepare)
> > > and not on others(those have sleeping).
> > The first option has the same result.  E.g. on some platforms
> > clk->ops->prepare might be NULL, on others it's not.
> 
> If clk->ops->prepare is NULL, then clk_prepare() better return success
> as it should mean "no preparation necessary", not "someone didn't
> implement it so its an error".
> 
> Calling clk->ops->enable() with a spinlock held will ensure that no one
> tries to make that method sleep, so if people want sleeping stuff they
> have to use the clk_prepare() stuff.  It's a self-enforcing API which
> ensures that we don't get sleeping stuff inside clk_enable().
> 
> And with a check in clk_enable() for a preparation, it helps to ensure
> that drivers do call clk_prepare() before clk_enable() - though it can't
> guarantee it in every case.
Full ack.  (I wonder if you misunderstood me or wanted to put my
statement into more words.  Jassi didn't like that a clk_enable without
a previous clk_prepare worked on some platforms and on others it
doesn't.  With BUG_ON(clk->ops->prepare && !clk->prepare_count) in
clk_enable we have exactly this situation.)

Best regards
Uwe


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-K?nig            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.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/