[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdXfH6JQfMnJwRA9f0pD0qbc3bNwPJd38c6=BuAgOxZ-fg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 09:27:06 +0200
From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Maxime Coquelin <maxime.coquelin@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC RFT 3/3] clk: introduce CLK_ENABLE_HAND_OFF flag
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org> wrote:
>> I think that we can come up with a reasonable DT wrapper around the
>> flag. I will be ecstatic if we can agree that the meaning of the flag
>> can be tweaked just a bit to mean, "prevent this critical clock from
>> being disabled, as it was enabled out of reset or by the bootloader,
>> until a driver claims it and calls clk_prepare_enable".
>
> Easy, how about:
>
> 'prevent_this_critical_clock_from_being_disabled_as_it_was_enabled_out_of_reset_or_by_the_bootloader_until_a_driver_claims_it_and_calls_clk_prepare_enable'
To make it less Linux-centric:
"Prevent this critical clock from being disabled implicitly by the OS, as it
was enabled out of reset or by the bootloader, until it's explicitly managed
by a driver."
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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