From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: edubezval@gmail.com (Eduardo Valentin) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 01:18:06 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] thermal: exynos: add optional sclk support In-Reply-To: References: <1416642356-8694-1-git-send-email-a.kesavan@samsung.com> <20141124114845.0a03eeb4@amdc2363> <20141124175242.GA1351@developer> Message-ID: <20141125051803.GA29240@developer> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Abhilash, Hi, On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 08:00:50AM +0530, Abhilash Kesavan wrote: > >> > >> Lukasz, thanks for the review. > >> > >> Chanwoo, are you OK with this ? If so, I will post a v2 with this and > >> the other changes you suggested. > > > > Is this a mandatory or a optional clk? What happens if the chip has the > > clock, but you fail to get it in this code? > > This is mandatory on Exynos7 but not on the older SoCs. On Exynos7 if > this clock is disabled then the TMU will not function. > It means, that only on Exynos7, outputing a dev_err is the right thing to do. On other SoCs versions, it does not make sense at all requesting this clock. > > > > Think the rule of thumb is to at least warn the user that you are > > bailing to the defaults, because you failed to get the clock, when you > > were supposed to. > > > > Besides, warning / logging (even if it is in debugging mode) the user > > that you failed to get a clock, when the board / platform does not > > support it, sounds at least bogus for them. > > So, you would rather that I go with Chanwoo's approach of adding a > per-soc flag indicating the presence of this clock ? > Yes. BR, Eduardo Valentin > Regards, > Abhilash -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 473 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: