From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, shawn.guo@linaro.org,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
Richard Zhao <richard.zhao@freescale.com>,
kernel@pengutronix.de, dong.aisheng@linaro.org,
timur@freescale.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 REBASE] ASoC: fsl_ssi: convert to use devm_clk_get
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:20:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120605102040.GL23408@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120605101558.GJ8262@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 822 bytes --]
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:15:59AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:14:13AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That'd work too, of course (providing everyone has been implementing
> > clk_put()). Though getting everyone on the same page with the clock API
> > seems much more worthwhile if we can do it.
> Why wouldn't clk_put() be implemented? Drivers call it just like clk_get().
Lazy people who can't be bothered, especially on platforms that do
things like just return a pointer to a statically allocated clock or
never really expect their drivers to be unloaded. Hopefully everyone
filled in the blank but I've just got a general pessimism about relying
on things like that.
> The devm*() stuff should just be a layer on top of clk_get()/clk_put() and
> nothing more.
It is, yes.
[-- Attachment #1.2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com (Mark Brown)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 REBASE] ASoC: fsl_ssi: convert to use devm_clk_get
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:20:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120605102040.GL23408@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120605101558.GJ8262@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:15:59AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:14:13AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > That'd work too, of course (providing everyone has been implementing
> > clk_put()). Though getting everyone on the same page with the clock API
> > seems much more worthwhile if we can do it.
> Why wouldn't clk_put() be implemented? Drivers call it just like clk_get().
Lazy people who can't be bothered, especially on platforms that do
things like just return a pointer to a statically allocated clock or
never really expect their drivers to be unloaded. Hopefully everyone
filled in the blank but I've just got a general pessimism about relying
on things like that.
> The devm*() stuff should just be a layer on top of clk_get()/clk_put() and
> nothing more.
It is, yes.
-------------- 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/20120605/3e744aea/attachment.sig>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-05 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-04 1:42 [PATCH v2 REBASE] ASoC: fsl_ssi: convert to use devm_clk_get Richard Zhao
2012-06-04 1:42 ` Richard Zhao
2012-06-04 1:42 ` [PATCH v2 REBASE] ASoC: imx-audmux: add pinctrl support Richard Zhao
2012-06-04 1:42 ` Richard Zhao
2012-06-04 9:52 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-04 9:52 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-04 9:51 ` [PATCH v2 REBASE] ASoC: fsl_ssi: convert to use devm_clk_get Mark Brown
2012-06-04 9:51 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 6:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2012-06-05 6:47 ` Sascha Hauer
2012-06-05 10:03 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 10:03 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 10:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-06-05 10:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-06-05 10:14 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 10:14 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 10:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-06-05 10:15 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-06-05 10:20 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2012-06-05 10:20 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 10:10 ` Mark Brown
2012-06-05 10:10 ` 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=20120605102040.GL23408@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=dong.aisheng@linaro.org \
--cc=kernel@pengutronix.de \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=richard.zhao@freescale.com \
--cc=s.hauer@pengutronix.de \
--cc=shawn.guo@linaro.org \
--cc=timur@freescale.com \
/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.