[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <154356998033.88331.4426431020982838779@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2018 01:26:20 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>
To: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>,
kbuild test robot <lkp@...el.com>
Cc: kbuild-all@...org, Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
linux-clk@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@...tlin.com>,
Antoine Tenart <antoine.tenart@...tlin.com>,
Maxime Chevallier <maxime.chevallier@...tlin.com>,
Gregory Clement <gregory.clement@...tlin.com>,
Nadav Haklai <nadavh@...vell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clk: core: link consumer with clock driver
Quoting Miquel Raynal (2018-11-23 01:11:32)
> Would you agree with me adding dummy functions in the #else section
> like:
>
> static inline void __clk_device_link(struct device *consumer, struct clk *clk)
> {
> return;
> }
>
> static inline void __clk_device_unlink(struct clk *clk)
> {
> return;
> }
>
> Do you want me to also declare these functions in the #if section
> (with the external keyword) to balance the above declarations?
Why can't we do the linking in __clk_get() and __clk_put()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists