From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get()
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:34:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120402172954.GH15197@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120402170442.GF24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:32:40PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Allow clk API users to simplify their cleanup paths by providing a
> > managed version of clk_get().
> > Due to the lack of a standard struct clk to look up the device from a
> > managed clk_put() is not provided, it would be very unusual to use this
> > function so it's not a big loss.
> Err, why? The contents of struct clk has nothing to do with clk_put().
> You're doing something really wrong here.
It does for a devm_clk_put(). Normally this would end up being:
void devm_clk_put(struct clk *clk);
but the devres stuff needs us to have a struct device to get the
underlying allocation/mapping and undo it.
> Remember, there is not going to _ever_ be the situation where a struct clk
> is specific to any particular struct device - it's a 1:N mapping between
> clks and devices.
Right, absolutely - to do it as above struct clk would be allocated per
user and indirect to the actual clock implementation (which some people
were muttering about for other reasons, though I can't remember what
those were off the top of my head). Probably what would actually end up
happening is that we'd instead have a signature like:
devm_clk_put(struct device *dev, struct clk *clk);
but I didn't particularly feel like making that decision right now,
especially if we do end up going with per user allocations and can use
the more idiomatic signature.
> So, until you sort out your misunderstanding, NAK.
I think I understand just fine, thanks.
In any case, we'd only really need a devm_clk_put() if someone wants one
which is a bit of a corner case in the first place so just ignoring the
issue until that happens should be fine.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20120402/90c172ee/attachment.sig>
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Mike Turquette <mturquette@ti.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get()
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:34:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120402172954.GH15197@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120402170442.GF24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1780 bytes --]
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:32:40PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Allow clk API users to simplify their cleanup paths by providing a
> > managed version of clk_get().
> > Due to the lack of a standard struct clk to look up the device from a
> > managed clk_put() is not provided, it would be very unusual to use this
> > function so it's not a big loss.
> Err, why? The contents of struct clk has nothing to do with clk_put().
> You're doing something really wrong here.
It does for a devm_clk_put(). Normally this would end up being:
void devm_clk_put(struct clk *clk);
but the devres stuff needs us to have a struct device to get the
underlying allocation/mapping and undo it.
> Remember, there is not going to _ever_ be the situation where a struct clk
> is specific to any particular struct device - it's a 1:N mapping between
> clks and devices.
Right, absolutely - to do it as above struct clk would be allocated per
user and indirect to the actual clock implementation (which some people
were muttering about for other reasons, though I can't remember what
those were off the top of my head). Probably what would actually end up
happening is that we'd instead have a signature like:
devm_clk_put(struct device *dev, struct clk *clk);
but I didn't particularly feel like making that decision right now,
especially if we do end up going with per user allocations and can use
the more idiomatic signature.
> So, until you sort out your misunderstanding, NAK.
I think I understand just fine, thanks.
In any case, we'd only really need a devm_clk_put() if someone wants one
which is a bit of a corner case in the first place so just ignoring the
issue until that happens should be fine.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-02 17:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-01 11:32 [PATCH 1/2] clk: Fix comment for end of CONFIG_COMMON_CLK section Mark Brown
2012-04-01 11:32 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-01 11:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get() Mark Brown
2012-04-01 11:32 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-01 15:26 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-01 15:26 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-01 15:34 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-01 15:34 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-02 16:48 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 16:48 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 16:52 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 16:52 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:04 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 17:04 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 17:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:16 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 17:16 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 17:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:34 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 17:34 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 18:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 18:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:16 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-02 17:16 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-02 17:30 ` Turquette, Mike
2012-04-02 17:30 ` Turquette, Mike
2012-04-02 17:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:34 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2012-04-02 17:34 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-02 18:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 18:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-01 13:02 ` [PATCH 1/2] clk: Fix comment for end of CONFIG_COMMON_CLK section Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-01 13:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-01 14:29 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-01 14:29 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120402172954.GH15197@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.