On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Olof Johansson <olof@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? No, the spinlock needs to be held between the increment/decrement and test and the actual register write. The spinlock release in the enable function needs to be moved after the register write. -- 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