[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87sidq3ox8.fsf@free.fr>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:38:59 +0100
From: Robert Jarzmik <robert.jarzmik@...e.fr>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mturquette@...aro.org, sboyd@...eaurora.org, kernel@...inux.com,
devicetree@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> writes:
>> I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does
>> exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not used by
>> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ?
>>
>> And if that reason exists, I'd like to find it in the commit message.
>
> The problem is applying that flag in a generic way.
>
> However, I guess you haven't seen this [1] yet?
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/27/548
I have.
And yet :
1) This won't go in a _commit_ message (as opposed to cover-letter). Moreover
it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it
says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to
CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied.
2) I still fail to see why this is necessary
IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should
be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way
?
I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm
asking.
Cheers.
--
Robert
--
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