RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] clk: Provide managed helper to get and enable bulk clocks

["Shradha Todi" <shradha.t@samsung.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
> Sent: 09 March 2024 06:21
> To: 'Dan Carpenter' <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>; Shradha Todi
> <shradha.t@samsung.com>
> Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
> pci@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-samsung-
> soc@vger.kernel.org; mturquette@baylibre.com; jingoohan1@gmail.com;
> lpieralisi@kernel.org; kw@linux.com; robh@kernel.org; bhelgaas@google.com;
> krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org; alim.akhtar@samsung.com;
> linux@armlinux.org.uk; m.szyprowski@samsung.com;
> manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org; pankaj.dubey@samsung.com;
> gost.dev@samsung.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] clk: Provide managed helper to get and enable bulk
> clocks
> 
> Quoting Shradha Todi (2024-03-06 04:13:03)
> > >
> > > When clk_bulk_get_all() returns zero then we return success here.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, we are returning success in case there are no clocks as well. In
> > case there are no clocks defined in the DT-node, then it is assumed
> > that the driver does not need any clock manipulation for driver
> > operation. So the intention here is to continue without throwing
> > error.
> 
> Maybe we shouldn't even return the clks to the caller. Do you have any use for
> the clk pointers?

The intention to return the clk pointers was in the case where caller wants to
manipulate a particular clock in certain conditions. They can obtain the clock pointer
and use clk_set_parent, clk_set_rate on those particular clocks.
But I understand that in that case users can use existing clk_bulk_get_all() API.
So, should I go ahead and send v7?