[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DU0PR04MB9417F9CBB5C9EE1FC85B10A2886D9@DU0PR04MB9417.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 09:17:08 +0000
From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@....com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>, "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@....nxp.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
"krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org"
<krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>
CC: "abelvesa@...nel.org" <abelvesa@...nel.org>,
"mturquette@...libre.com" <mturquette@...libre.com>,
"sboyd@...nel.org" <sboyd@...nel.org>,
"shawnguo@...nel.org" <shawnguo@...nel.org>,
"s.hauer@...gutronix.de" <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
"kernel@...gutronix.de" <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
"festevam@...il.com" <festevam@...il.com>,
dl-linux-imx <linux-imx@....com>,
"linux-clk@...r.kernel.org" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] clk: imx: imx93: introduce clk_bypassed module parameter
+ DT maintainers.
> 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
ok, but this is for boot, so only DT could be considered.
But DT is to describe hardware, here I just wanna give user
an option to bypass some clocks. Is it ok to add a DT property
saying "fsl,imx93-bypass-clks = <IMX93_CLK_X>, <IMX93_CLK_Y>" ?
Thanks,
Peng.
>
> 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