[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120401153450.GC8971@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 16:34:50 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get()
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:26:10AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 4/1/2012 4:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt | 3 +++
> > drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/linux/clk.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
> > 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> But why is this part of clkdev.c? devm_clk_get() should work regardless
> of the implementation of clk_get() so can we put it into some other file
> that is compiled if HAVE_CLK=y so everyone benefits from this and not
> just users who select CLKDEV_LOOKUP?
Mostly just because clk_get() is part of clkdev.c and I didn't feel like
creating a new file, though also because I really hope that we're going
to be moving away from open coding clock framework things so that we can
start to push clock API usage into non-SoC code. Things like adding new
clocks are going to be a part of that.
To put it another way, why would a platform want to avoid clkdev?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists