[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111201183211.GC18120@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:32:11 +0000
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Paul Walmsley <paul@...an.com>
Cc: "Turquette, Mike" <mturquette@...com>, linux@....linux.org.uk,
linus.walleij@...ricsson.com, patches@...aro.org,
shawn.guo@...escale.com, magnus.damm@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, amit.kucheria@...aro.org,
richard.zhao@...aro.org, grant.likely@...retlab.ca,
dsaxena@...aro.org, eric.miao@...aro.org, sboyd@...cinc.com,
skannan@...cinc.com, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
jeremy.kerr@...onical.com, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
arnd.bergmann@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] clk: introduce the common clock framework
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:30:16AM -0700, Paul Walmsley wrote:
> So for example, if you had a driver that did:
> c = clk_get(dev, clk_name);
> clk_enable(c);
> clk_set_rate(c, clk_rate);
> and c was currently not enabled by any other driver on the system, and
> nothing else had called clk_block_rate_change(c), then the rate change
> would be allowed to proceed. (modulo any notifier activity, etc.)
> So clk_{allow,block}_rate_change() was simply intended to allow or
> restrict other users of the same clock, not the current user.
Ah, sorry! I'd totally misunderstood what you were proposing.
--
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