[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023050410-rejoin-vocation-8560@gregkh>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 18:10:42 +0900
From: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>
Cc: abelvesa@...nel.org, mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
shawnguo@...nel.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de, kernel@...gutronix.de,
festevam@...il.com, linux-imx@....com, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: imx: imx93: introduce clk_bypassed module parameter
On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:55:06PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
>
> With the clk names specified in clk_bypassed module parameter, give
> user an option to bypass the clk from managing them by Linux kernel.
As I said on another email, no, please do not add new module parameters
for drivers, this is not the 1990s
Also, another comment below:
> @@ -310,6 +357,8 @@ static int imx93_clocks_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(root_array); i++) {
> root = &root_array[i];
> + if (unlikely(imx_clk_bypass_check(root->name)))
> + continue;
Only ever use likely/unlikely if you can measure the difference. Here
on a probe function, you can not, this is not needed at all, the
compiler and CPU will do a better job over time than you can guess at
this.
But as this change isn't needed, this shouldn't be an issue either.
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists