Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751806Ab1BDKt3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:49:29 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:54342 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750930Ab1BDKt2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Feb 2011 05:49:28 -0500 Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 10:48:32 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Richard Zhao Cc: Stephen Boyd , Nicolas Pitre , Dima Zavin , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Vincent Guittot , linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Ben Herrenschmidt , Sascha Hauer , Paul Mundt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Saravana Kannan , Ben Dooks , Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , Jeremy Kerr , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API, part 2: clk_prepare/clk_unprepare Message-ID: <20110204104832.GE14627@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <201102011711.31258.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> <20110201105449.GY1147@pengutronix.de> <20110201131512.GH31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110201141837.GA1147@pengutronix.de> <20110201143932.GK31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110201151846.GD1147@pengutronix.de> <20110201152458.GP31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D48741F.8060006@codeaurora.org> <20110201212409.GU31216@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110204095424.GB2347@richard-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110204095424.GB2347@richard-laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2172 Lines: 53 On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 05:54:24PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote: > On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 09:24:09PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > You can't catch enable/disable imbalances in the prepare code, and you > > can't really catch them in the unprepare code either. > > > > Consider two drivers sharing the same struct clk. When the second driver > > prepares the clock, the enable count could well be non-zero, caused by > > the first driver. Ditto for when the second driver is removed, and it > > calls unprepare - the enable count may well be non-zero. > > > > The only thing you can check is that when the prepare count is zero, > > the enable count is also zero. You can also check in clk_enable() and > > clk_disable() that the prepare count is non-zero. > > but how can we check prepare count without mutex lock? Even if prepare count > is atomic_t, it can not guarantee the clock is actually prepared or unprepared. > So it's important for driver writer to maintain the call sequence. Forget atomic_t - it's the most abused type in the kernel. Just because something says its atomic doesn't make it so. In a use like this, atomic_t just buys you additional needless complexity with no benefit. Of course we can check the prepared count. What we can't do is check that it doesn't change concurrently - but that's something we can't do anyway. int clk_enable(struct clk *clk) { unsigned long flags; int ret = 0; if (clk) { if (WARN_ON(!clk->prepare_count)) return -EINVAL; spin_lock_irqsave(&clk->lock, flags); if (clk->enable_count++ == 0) ret = clk->ops->enable(clk); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&clk->lock, flags); } return ret; } is entirely sufficient to catch the case of a single-use clock not being prepared before clk_enable() is called. We're after detecting drivers missing calls to clk_prepare(), we're not after detecting concurrent calls to clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare(). -- 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/