On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 02:10:32PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On 09/26/2011 01:40 PM, Jamie Iles wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 01:33:08PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > >>> +static void clk_gate_set_bit(struct clk_hw *clk) > >>> +{ > >>> + struct clk_gate *gate = to_clk_gate(clk); > >>> + u32 reg; > >>> + > >>> + reg = __raw_readl(gate->reg); > >>> + reg |= BIT(gate->bit_idx); > >>> + __raw_writel(reg, gate->reg); > >> > >> Don't these read-mod-writes need a spinlock around it? > >> > >> It's possible to have an enable bits and dividers in the same register. > >> If you did a set_rate and while doing an enable/disable, there would be > >> a problem. Also, it may be 2 different clocks in the same register, so > >> the spinlock needs to be shared and not per clock. > > > > Well the prepare lock will be held here and I believe that would be > > sufficient. > > No, the enable spinlock is protecting enable/disable. But set_rate is > protected by the prepare mutex. So you clearly don't need locking if you > have a register of only 1 bit enables. If you have a register accessed > by both enable/disable and prepare/unprepare/set_rate, then you need > some protection.
OK fair point, but I would guess that if you had a clock like this then you probably wouldn't use this simple gated clock would you? (speaking from my world where we have quite simple clocks ;-)) Jamie _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev