[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53859E47.2040701@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:28:55 +0100
From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC: Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-mmc <linux-mmc@...r.kernel.org>,
Chris Ball <chris@...ntf.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/13] mmc: mmci: add explicit clk control
On 28/05/14 09:02, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla
> <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>> On 26/05/14 15:21, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>>> On 23 May 2014 14:52, <srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> + bool explicit_mclk_control;
>>>> + bool cclk_is_mclk;
>>>
>>> I can't see why you need to have both these new configurations. Aren't
>>> "cclk_is_mclk" just a fact when you use "explicit_mclk_control".
>>
>>> I also believe I would prefer something like "qcom_clkdiv" instead.
>>
>> There is a subtle difference between both the flags. Am happy to change it
>> to qcom_clkdiv.
>
> I think this was due to me wanting the variant variables to be more about
> the actual technical difference they indicate rather than pointing to
> a certain vendor or variant where that difference occurs.
>
Yes, that's correct, I think having these two variables seems to be more
generic than qcom_clkdiv.
I will keep it as it is and fix other comments from Ulf in next version.
> It's a very minor thing though, if you prefer it this way, go for it.
>
Thanks,
sirni
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
>
--
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