[PATCH v1 05/24] clk: wrap I/O access for improved portability
Nicolas Pitre
nicolas.pitre at linaro.org
Fri Jul 19 03:47:22 EST 2013
On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 1. clk_get() and clk_put() are NOT part of the common clock API.
> They're separate - they're part of the clk API, and the infrastructure
> behind that is clkdev, which is a separately owned thing (by me.)
>
> 2. The "contract" of the clk API is defined by the clk API, not by some
> random implementation like the common clock API. The clk API is
> maintained by myself, and is described in include/linux/clk.h
>
> 3. clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare() are functions MUST only be called
> from contexts where sleeping is permitted. These functions MAY sleep
> for whatever reason they require to, and as long as they require to.
> (This is the whole reason these two functions were created in the
> first place.)
>
> 4. clk_enable() and clk_disable() MAY be called from any context, but
> MUST never sleep. If you need to talk over a non-atomic bus for these,
> then these functions should be no-ops, and the code which does that
> must be executed from the clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare() operations.
Could the above be included in some form in Documentation/clk.txt (this
is likely one of the first location people look for information) and
elsewhere if appropriate please?
A *lot* of people are confused by the prepare-enable-disable-unprepare
sequence and when I try to find some rational for the prepare/enable
split I can only direct them to mail archive posts since this is nowhere
to be found in the kernel.
The comments in include/linux/clk.h, while correct, are very terse and
don't provide any insight to the reason why there is a split in the API.
The content of Documentation/clk.txt does refer to prepare and enable
(and their counterparts) but again doesn't provide any clue about the
reason for their existence.
Since there've been several good posts with usage example now buried
into list archives, I think this would go a long way helping people get
it right if those were part of the kernel documentation as well.
Nicolas
More information about the devicetree-discuss
mailing list