From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752266AbbBWMXR (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:23:17 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:45362 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751951AbbBWMXQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:23:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 12:23:09 +0000 From: Lee Jones To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Andy Shevchenko , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Boyd , Mike Turquette , Bryan Huntsman , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Ralf Baechle , Sylwester Nawrocki , Tomeu Vizoso Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] clkdev: change prototype of clk_register_clkdev() Message-ID: <20150223122309.GB21609@x1> References: <1424692181-14455-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1424692181-14455-2-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20150223115356.GA21609@x1> <20150223120329.GN8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150223120329.GN8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53:56AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > arch/arm/mach-msm/clock-pcom.c | 9 +++++---- > > > arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c | 5 ++++- > > > arch/mips/ath79/clock.c | 6 +++--- > > > drivers/clk/clk-bcm2835.c | 12 +++++++----- > > > drivers/clk/clk-max-gen.c | 9 ++++----- > > > drivers/clk/clk-xgene.c | 6 +++--- > > > drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 15 ++++++++++----- > > > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c | 13 ++++++++----- > > > drivers/clk/samsung/clk-s3c2410-dclk.c | 19 +++++++++--------- > > > drivers/clk/samsung/clk.c | 35 +++++++++++++++++++--------------- > > > include/linux/clkdev.h | 2 +- > > > 11 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) > > > > What's tying all of these changes together? It would be better > > (simpler for you) if you split them up by subsystem and resubmitted. > > I think maybe, just maybe, you might get the answer to that if you read > the patch. > > You can't change the function signature without creating lots of warnings > and causing regressions. > > Yes, the function could be renamed whilst doing this change, but that's > really quite sub-standard in an already busy namespace. Okay, I can go with that. If I'm reading this patch correctly, it doesn't actually fix anything. What's the thinking behind stopping short? Why don't you go the extra inch and free the resources at the appropriate times?