Re: [PATCH 0/7] clk: at91: sckc: improve error path

[Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>]

On 26/06/2019 11:53:59-0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Alexandre Belloni (2019-06-21 02:33:02)
> > On 20/06/2019 10:30:42+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > On 18.06.2019 12:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > > On 13/06/2019 15:37:06+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
> > > >> From: Claudiu Beznea <claudiu.beznea@microchip.com>
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations
> > > >> by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures.
> > > >>
> > > > 
> > > > Does the platform even boot when the slow clock is not available? 
> > > > 
> > > > The TCB clocksource would fail at:
> > > > 
> > > >         tc.slow_clk = of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "slow_clk");
> > > >         if (IS_ERR(tc.slow_clk))
> > > >                 return PTR_ERR(tc.slow_clk);
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > In case of using TC as clocksource, yes, the platform wouldn't boot if slow
> > > clock is not available, because, anyway the TC needs it. PIT may work
> > > without it (if slow clock is not used to drive the PIT).
> > > 
> > > For sure there are other IPs (which may be or are driven by slow clock)
> > > which may not work if slow clock is driven them.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, please let me know if you feel this series has no meaning.
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, I'm not sure it is worth it but at the same time, it is not adding
> > many lines and you already developed it...
> > 
> 
> Is that a Reviewed-by or a Rejected-by tag?
> 

Reviewed-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>


-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com