[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2136865.gUkObTo8M5@phil>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 18:32:30 +0200
From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>
To: Andi Shyti <andi@...zian.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>
Cc: andi.shyti@...il.com, Jeffy Chen <jeffy.chen@...k-chips.com>,
Xing Zheng <zhengxing@...k-chips.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] clk: clk-rk3*: set CLK_IS_CRITICAL flag to critical clocks
Hi Andi,
Am Mittwoch, 29. Juni 2016, 01:09:22 schrieb Andi Shyti:
> > > RK2928_CLKSEL_CON(0), 14, 2, MFLAGS, 8, 5, DFLAGS),
> > >
> > > - GATE(ACLK_CPU, "aclk_cpu", "aclk_cpu_src", CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
> > > + GATE(ACLK_CPU, "aclk_cpu", "aclk_cpu_src",
> > > + CLK_IS_CRITICAL | CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED,
> >
> > - you'll never need both critical and ignore_unused
>
> Indeed I was unsure whether I should remove the
> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, but then I decided to leave it because that's
> basically what the driver is currently doing. Thanks!
>
> > Happens in some more cases below, but otherwise looks ok ... as written
> > in the cover-letter I'm just still trying to make up my mind if it's
> > worth waiting for the handoff mechanism.
>
> You mean something similar (*)?
I actually mean
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/2/11/694
which received additional comments somewhere and Mike said he wanted to
repost.
Heiko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists