Re: Locking in the clk API

[Saravana Kannan]

On 01/21/2011 02:28 PM, Colin Cross wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 04:53:44PM -0500, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > So I think that the API must be augmented with more methods, such as:
> > >
> > > clk_slow_enable():
> > >    - may sleep
> > >    - may be a no-op if the clk_fast_enable() is supported
> > >
> > > clk_fast_enable():
> > >    - may not sleep, used in atomic context
> > >    - may be a no-op if controlling the clock takes time, in which case
> > >      clk_slow_enable() must have set the clock up entirely
> > >
> > > ... and similar for clk_slow_disable() and clk_fast_disable().
> >
> > Isn't this along the same lines as my clk_prepare() vs clk_enable()
> > suggestion?
> >
> > I suggested that clk_prepare() be callable only from non-atomic contexts,
> > and do whatever's required to ensure that the clock is available.  That
> > may end up enabling the clock as a result.
> >
> > clk_enable() callable from atomic contexts, and turns the clock on if
> > the hardware supports such an operation.
> >
> > So, if you have something like:
> >
> > Xtal--->PLL--->Routing/Masking--->Device
> >
> > clk = clk_get() returns the clock for the device.
> >
> > clk_prepare(clk) would walk up the clock tree, selecting the routing and
> > preparing each clock.  Clocks prior to _and_ including the PLL would need
> > to be enabled.
> >
> > clk_enable(clk) would walk up the tree if the clock isn't already enabled,
> > calling clk_enable() on the parent clock.  As we require prepared clocks
> > to already be enabled, this automatically stops at the PLL.
> >
> > To encourage correct usage, we just need to make sure that clk_prepare()
> > has a might_sleep() thing, and clk_enable() throws a fit if it's used
> > on a clk without prepare being used first.  The second point is not easy
> > to do in a foolproof manner though, but doing _something_ is better than
> > nothing.
>
> I like this proposal, and I prefer the clk_prepare naming over
> clk_slow_enable - too many people would call clk_slow_enable instead
> of, and not as well as, clk_fast_enable.
>
> On Tegra, I currently use the ugly conditional mutex or spinlock
> method to deal with voltage scaling based on clock frequency.

Colin,

MSM is in a similar situation, so thought I should bring this up to you 
attention -- do you have no use case for changing the rate in atomic 
context? If you do, the clk_prepare/unprepare() approach won't work.

Do you have no such requirement?

-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/