On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 10:51:28 +0300 Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Apr 2013, Jesse Barnes <jbarnes at virtuousgeek.org> wrote: > > We need to hold the rps lock around punit access. > > Reviewed-by: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula at intel.com> > > And a semi-related question while at it... we will need punit access > also for non-rps stuff. Shall we just bundle them under the semantically > wrong rps lock? It would also feel a bit awkward to add another level of > locking for punit when we already have a "hw_lock" in rps. Unless the new users will need to take the lock in a blocking way (thus potentially impacting freq changes for a long time), I'd say we just keep abusing the rps hw_lock. -- Jesse Barnes, Intel Open Source Technology Center
