On 05/16/2013 01:44 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
Quoting Saravana Kannan (2013-05-15 21:07:24)Without this patch, the following race condition is possible. * clk-A has two parents - clk-X and clk-Y. * All three are disabled and clk-X is current parent. * Thread A: clk_set_parent(clk-A, clk-Y). * Thread A: <snip execution flow> * Thread A: Grabs enable lock. * Thread A: Sees enable count of clk-A is 0, so doesn't enable clk-Y. * Thread A: Updates clk-A SW parent to clk-Y * Thread A: Releases enable lock. * Thread B: clk_enable(clk-A). * Thread B: clk_enable() enables clk-Y, then enabled clk-A and returns. clk-A is now enabled in software, but not clocking in hardware since the hardware parent is still clk-X. The only way to avoid race conditions between clk_set_parent() and clk_enable/disable() is to ensure that clk_enable/disable() calls don't require changes to hardware enable state between changes to software clock topology and hardware clock topology. The options to achieve the above are: 1. Grab the enable lock before changing software/hardware topology and release it afterwards. 2. Keep the clock enabled for the duration of software/hardware topology change so that any additional enable/disable calls don't try to change the hardware state. Once the topology change is complete, the clock can be put back in its original enable state. Option (1) is not an acceptable solution since the set_parent() ops might need to sleep. Therefore, this patch implements option (2). This patch doesn't violate any API semantics. clk_disable() doesn't guarantee that the clock is actually disabled. So, no clients of a clock can assume that a clock is disabled after their last call to clk_disable(). So, enabling the clock during a parent change is not a violation of any API semantics. This also has the nice side effect of simplifying the error handling code. Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Updated to this version in clk-next.
Thanks Mike. I forgot to add the Ack by Ulf. Would be nice if you can put that in.
Btw, I did send this email to the list. But looks like this mail is wedged in the series of tubes in the arm mailing list.
-Saravana -- The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
