[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121123084314.GB25754@S2100-06.ap.freescale.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:43:17 +0800
From: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
CC: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] CLK: uninline clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare()
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:08:58AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:57:54PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 23 November 2012 12:49, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com> wrote:
> > > Ahh, I see. Then I think my first patch was correct albeit it had bad changelog
> > > message. If provided stubs for clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare() for
> > > platforms that did not define HAVE_CLK and pushed the check for
> > > HAVE_CLK_PREPARE down into drivers/clk/clk.c so __clk_prepare() would
> > > either call platform implementation or just be an empty function.
> > >
> > > Am I correct or I am still missing something?
> >
> > I believe you are still missing it :)
> >
> > clk.c will only be compiled when we have COMMON_CLK and
> > COMMON_CLK selects HAVE_CLK_PREPARE.
> >
> > So, using HAVE_CLK_PREPARE in clk.c is useless, as its always true.
> > I feel, the best solution would be to simply drop patch 1 and apply others.
>
> Right... OK, I'll drop the first patch.
>
Removing HAVE_CLK_PREPARE from ARCH_MXS stands valid though. I will
send another patch to do that.
Shawn
--
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