[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121022135024.GN21164@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:50:24 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: Make the generic clock API available by default
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 02:27:11PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 02:05:57PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 02:02:50PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > @@ -327,6 +328,7 @@ config ARCH_AT91
> > > select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
> > > select CLKDEV_LOOKUP
> > > select HAVE_CLK
> > > + select HAVE_CUSTOM_CLK
>
> > This is silly. If you select "HAVE_CUSTOM_CLK" then isn't it true that
> > "HAVE_CLK" should also be selected? If so, why not have "HAVE_CUSTOM_CLK"
> > do that selection and remove it from all these entries?
>
> If we're worrying about that there's the larger point that the effect of
> this patch is to make HAVE_CLK meaningless as there will be no platform
> for which it's not true. I was just leaving HAVE_CLK alone for now
> ready to circle around on it if we ever manage to get the enabling bit
> sorted.
Are you sure that all architectures are fine with having that permanently
enabled? What about nommu architectures?
--
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