From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com (Thomas Petazzoni) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:51:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: Fix of_clk_get() call in a non sleeping context In-Reply-To: <8760wx3oy4.fsf@free-electrons.com> References: <1457446733-7137-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20160308164117.2a3ed3a7@free-electrons.com> <87a8m93pt0.fsf@free-electrons.com> <20160308173134.22a3ad64@free-electrons.com> <8760wx3oy4.fsf@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <20160308175147.7203734e@free-electrons.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello, On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:38:11 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > And from clk_enable comment we have: > "" > clk_enable must not sleep, which differentiates it from clk_prepare. In a > simple case, clk_enable can be used instead of clk_prepare to ungate a clk > if the operation will never sleep. > "" > > Moreoever for me the "must" was to insist to the order of the call no to > the fact that both must be called. Right make sense, thanks for correcting me on this. If that's OK from a clock maintainer point of view, I'm fine. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:48646 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933164AbcCHQvu (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:51:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 17:51:47 +0100 From: Thomas Petazzoni To: Gregory CLEMENT Cc: Jason Cooper , Andrew Lunn , Sebastian Hesselbarth , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Lior Amsalem , Nadav Haklai , Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: mvebu: Fix of_clk_get() call in a non sleeping context Message-ID: <20160308175147.7203734e@free-electrons.com> In-Reply-To: <8760wx3oy4.fsf@free-electrons.com> References: <1457446733-7137-1-git-send-email-gregory.clement@free-electrons.com> <20160308164117.2a3ed3a7@free-electrons.com> <87a8m93pt0.fsf@free-electrons.com> <20160308173134.22a3ad64@free-electrons.com> <8760wx3oy4.fsf@free-electrons.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:38:11 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > And from clk_enable comment we have: > "" > clk_enable must not sleep, which differentiates it from clk_prepare. In a > simple case, clk_enable can be used instead of clk_prepare to ungate a clk > if the operation will never sleep. > "" > > Moreoever for me the "must" was to insist to the order of the call no to > the fact that both must be called. Right make sense, thanks for correcting me on this. If that's OK from a clock maintainer point of view, I'm fine. Thanks! Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com