[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102071608.42855.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 16:08:40 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König"
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Dima Zavin <dmitriyz@...gle.com>,
Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC, PATCH 3/3] clk: add warnings for incorrect enable/prepare semantics
Hi Uwe,
> This implies the warning is only issued on clocks that have a prepare
> callback. If we want to enforce the new API the warning here shouldn't
> depend on clk->ops->prepare. (clk_prepare and clk_unprepare need to
> be changed then to adapt the prepare_count even in the absence of
> clk->ops->prepare.)
Yeah, it's a decision about either adding a small cost to all clk_prepare()s
(ie, adding cost when there is no prepare callback), or checking for the
correct prepare/enable semantics for all clocks (even when it doesn't matter
for that particular clock). I chose the first as more important, but happy to
go either way here.
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists