Kevin,
Thanks for having a look into it.
? 2015?09?03? 02:28, Kevin Hilman ??:
> Caesar Wang <wxt at rock-chips.com> writes:
>
>> This driver is found on RK3288 SoCs.
>>
>> In order to meet high performance and low power requirements, a power
>> management unit is designed or saving power when RK3288 in low power
>> mode.
>> The RK3288 PMU is dedicated for managing the power of the whole chip.
>>
>> PMU can work in the Low Power Mode by setting bit[0] of PMU_PWRMODE_CON
>> register. After setting the register, PMU would enter the Low Power mode.
>> In the low power mode, pmu will auto power on/off the specified power
>> domain, send idle req to specified power domain, shut down/up pll and
>> so on. All of above are configurable by setting corresponding registers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: jinkun.hong <jinkun.hong at rock-chips.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Caesar Wang <wxt at rock-chips.com>
> [...]
>
>> +static void rockchip_pm_remove_one_domain(struct rockchip_pm_domain *pd)
>> +{
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < pd->num_clks; i++) {
>> + clk_unprepare(pd->clks[i]);
>> + clk_put(pd->clks[i]);
>> + }
>
> You don't set pd->num_clks = 0 here, which means other places that
> iterate over the clocks might race with this and try to use clocks that
> have been unprepared/put.
Agree, we should set the "pd->num_cloks=0' in here.
> This might be over-paranoid, but in particular, this could race with
> rockchip_pd_power().
>
> Also not setting the pd->num_clks to zero would be a problem for a
> power-controller that is configured as a module which could be unloaded
> and reloaded (I know that doesn't really work now, but it will
> eventually, I hope.)
Yep.
>
> Maybe use the mutex here? It should at least protect the zeroing of
> pm->num_clks.
Sound resonable.
Done.
---
Thanks,
Caesar
>
> Kevin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-rockchip mailing list
> Linux-rockchip at lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-rockchip
