Hi, On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Some peripheral clocks share enable bits. Refcount the enables so > that calling clk_disable on one clock will not turn off another > clock. > > Signed-off-by: Colin Cross <ccross@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra2_clocks.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra2_clocks.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra2_clocks.c > index 196c249..2734889 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra2_clocks.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/tegra2_clocks.c > @@ -154,6 +154,12 @@ static void __iomem *reg_pmc_base = IO_ADDRESS(TEGRA_PMC_BASE); > */ > static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(clock_register_lock); > > +/* > + * Some peripheral clocks share an enable bit, so refcount the enable bits > + * in registers CLK_ENABLE_L, CLK_ENABLE_H, and CLK_ENABLE_U > + */ > +static int tegra_periph_clk_enable_refcount[3 * 32]; Given that this is always locked when incrementing/decrementing, should it just be switched to an array of atomics instead? -Olof -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html