[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F9664B3.6040104@st.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 14:00:43 +0530
From: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"sshtylyov@...sta.com" <sshtylyov@...sta.com>,
spear-devel <spear-devel@...t.st.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ide@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ide@...r.kernel.org>,
"viresh.linux@...il.com" <viresh.linux@...il.com>,
"mturquette@...aro.org" <mturquette@...aro.org>,
"jgarzik@...hat.com" <jgarzik@...hat.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/9] ata/sata_mv: Remove conditional compilation of
clk code
On 4/24/2012 1:56 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> Think about this case: if you don't have the means to control the clock
> inputs to a device (for example, you don't support the clk API on your
> CPU arch) then for the device to be functional, it must be supplied with
> all its necessary clocks. Therefore, the clock is already enabled. It
> makes sense for the clk API to stub-out to be completely transparent and
> non-error inducing to the driver.
>
> The problem comes with clk_get_rate(). I'd suggest merely returning zero
> for that in this case. If the clock rate is really required by a driver,
> then the clk API would need to be enabled.
Ok. Will do as suggested. Will include the patches i dropped earlier, where
i removed macros for clk_*().
--
viresh
--
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