[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c7414301-da0d-cd4d-237d-34277f5ee1d2@free.fr>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:10:21 +0100
From: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@...e.fr>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux admin <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
linux-clk <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] clk: Add devm_clk_{prepare,enable,prepare_enable}
On 25/11/2019 13:55, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
> It's also worth reading https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/755667/
> and considering whether you really are using the clk_prepare() and
> clk_enable() APIs correctly. Wanting these devm functions suggests
> you aren't...
In that older thread, you wrote:
> If you take the view that trying to keep clocks disabled is a good way
> to save power, then you'd have the clk_prepare() or maybe
> clk_prepare_enable() in your run-time PM resume handler, or maybe even
> deeper in the driver... the original design goal of the clk API was to
> allow power saving and clock control.
>
> With that in mind, getting and enabling the clock together in the
> probe function didn't make sense.
>
> I feel that aspect has been somewhat lost, and people now regard much
> of the clk API as a bit of a probe-time nuisance.
In the few drivers I've written, I call clk_prepare_enable() at probe.
And since clk_prepare_enable() is the only non-devm function in probe,
I need either a remove function, or an explicit registration step.
You seem to be saying I'm using the clk API in the wrong way?
Regards.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists