[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150812075118.GU18282@x1>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:51:18 +0100
From: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.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 Wed, 12 Aug 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> 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."
Hmm... I think you missed the giggles. :)
--
Lee Jones
Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog
--
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