Re: Locking in the clk API
From: Saravana Kannan
Date: Tue Jan 11 2011 - 22:25:34 EST
On 01/11/2011 06:35 AM, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
Hi Paul,
Again, you are approaching it from the angle that an atomic clock is a
special requirement rather than the default behaviour.
I'm not considering it a special requirement, but it's still a requirement
(that the called function does not sleep).
The problem with the inverse logic (clk_enable/clk_enable_sleepable) is that
now you've made the caller need to know what kind of clock it has, or might
have one day.
I think it's just a matter of how you interpret the name of the API in
English. It doesn't make the decision making of the developer any easier.
Just having a _atomic suffix doesn't mean the driver developer doesn't
need to know what type of clock it is. They are still making the
assumption that the enable/disable for that clock can be done atomically
-- namely an "atomic clock".
Similarly, when a driver developer calls the _sleepable APIs in their
code, for all practical purposes, they are making an assumption that the
enable/disable for that clock *needs to* (not may) sleep.
* For clk_enable/clk_enable_atomic, the decision is: is this call in an
atomic context?
* For clk_enable/clk_enable_sleepable, the decision is: might the clock code
have given us a sleeping clock?
Having said the above, I'm slightly leaning towards
clk_enable/disable_atomic since it lines up with the
.suspend/.suspend_noirq functions in pm_ops.
Also, since it's good to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done
atomically, I think it would be good to make a developer explicitly
state they need _atomic functions and make them think about if they
really need to do that.
-Saravana
--
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
--
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/