[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2022 16:52:41 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
Cc: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] regmap: mmio: Don't unprepare attached clock
On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:42:28PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:48 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:19 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > regmap_mmio_attach_clk() prepares the clock that's passed in, we should
> > > > undo that when detaching otherwise we're leaking a prepare (as we do in
> > > > the explicit detach).
> > > Why do we allow the user to avoid explicit detach? What is the point
> > > of having that API in the case we take care of it?
> > I think just for symmetry so it's obvious that error handling is
> > happening if people want it to be.
> So, the only user of that API calls it explicitly. Should I rewrite a
> commit message somehow?
No. Your commit would just introduce a bug.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists