Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/2] Add a common struct clk

[Ben Dooks]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:14:35AM +0200, Lothar Wa?mann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > > +static inline int clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
> > > > +{
> > > > +	int ret = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!clk->ops->enable)
> > > > +		return 0;
> > > > +
> > > > +	mutex_lock(&clk->mutex);
> > > > +	if (!clk->enable_count)
> > > > +		ret = clk->ops->enable(clk);
> > > > +
> > > > +	if (!ret)
> > > > +		clk->enable_count++;
> > > > +	mutex_unlock(&clk->mutex);
> > > > +
> > > > +	return ret;
> > > > +}
> > > 
> Using a mutex in clk_enable()/clk_disable() is a bad idea, since that
> makes it impossible to call those functions in interrupt context.

I think that is a bad idea, unless you can provide otherwise. These
calls can sleep depending on implementation, and thus I would like to
ensure that they are marked as might-sleep.

Is there any specific reason? If so, we need to add some form of ops
where we have _nosleep specificially for this case.

-- 
Ben (ben@xxxxxxxxx, http://www.fluff.org/)

  'a smiley only costs 4 bytes'
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/