[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52527339.9090701@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:39:21 +0200
From: Sebastian Hesselbarth <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com>
To: Mike Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>
CC: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: provide public clk_is_enabled function
On 10/06/2013 11:04 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth
> <sebastian.hesselbarth@...il.com> wrote:
>> Of course, we can do clk_enable, read, clk_disable as said before - and
>> given the amount of questions and misinterpretation, I think it is the
>> saner way.
>
> Sorry for any misinterpretation on my end. I agree reading the
> register(s) within a clk_enable/clk_disable-protected section is the
> most sane option.
Well, as you are not the only one misinterpreting the purpose, I
guess it is more about the clk_is_enabled() function itself. Uwe was
very right, that it will lead to patches using it in a wrong way.
Using the common enable/disable functions does no harm to our workaround
and we will use it.
Thanks for taking the time to raise those questions and surface those
critical interpretations early!
Sebastian
--
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