From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robert.jarzmik@free.fr (Robert Jarzmik) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:38:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain In-Reply-To: <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> (Lee Jones's message of "Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:49:41 +0000") References: <1424799222-9301-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <87385r3uk9.fsf@free.fr> <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> Message-ID: <87sidq3ox8.fsf@free.fr> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Lee Jones writes: >> I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does >> exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not used by >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ? >> >> And if that reason exists, I'd like to find it in the commit message. > > The problem is applying that flag in a generic way. > > However, I guess you haven't seen this [1] yet? > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/27/548 I have. And yet : 1) This won't go in a _commit_ message (as opposed to cover-letter). Moreover it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied. 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way ? I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm asking. Cheers. -- Robert From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Robert Jarzmik Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:38:59 +0100 Message-ID: <87sidq3ox8.fsf@free.fr> References: <1424799222-9301-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <87385r3uk9.fsf@free.fr> <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> (Lee Jones's message of "Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:49:41 +0000") Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, mturquette-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org, sboyd-sgV2jX0FEOL9JmXXK+q4OQ@public.gmane.org, kernel-F5mvAk5X5gdBDgjK7y7TUQ@public.gmane.org, devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Lee Jones writes: >> I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does >> exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not used by >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ? >> >> And if that reason exists, I'd like to find it in the commit message. > > The problem is applying that flag in a generic way. > > However, I guess you haven't seen this [1] yet? > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/27/548 I have. And yet : 1) This won't go in a _commit_ message (as opposed to cover-letter). Moreover it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied. 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way ? I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm asking. Cheers. -- Robert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932089AbbB0XjJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:39:09 -0500 Received: from smtp02.smtpout.orange.fr ([80.12.242.124]:21294 "EHLO smtp.smtpout.orange.fr" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755341AbbB0XjH (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:39:07 -0500 X-ME-Helo: beldin X-ME-Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:39:05 +0100 X-ME-IP: 109.222.213.148 From: Robert Jarzmik To: Lee Jones Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@linaro.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, kernel@stlinux.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain References: <1424799222-9301-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <87385r3uk9.fsf@free.fr> <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> X-URL: http://belgarath.falguerolles.org/ Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 00:38:59 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20150227214941.GB12821@x1> (Lee Jones's message of "Fri, 27 Feb 2015 21:49:41 +0000") Message-ID: <87sidq3ox8.fsf@free.fr> User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.92 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Lee Jones writes: >> I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does >> exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not used by >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ? >> >> And if that reason exists, I'd like to find it in the commit message. > > The problem is applying that flag in a generic way. > > However, I guess you haven't seen this [1] yet? > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/27/548 I have. And yet : 1) This won't go in a _commit_ message (as opposed to cover-letter). Moreover it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied. 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way ? I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm asking. Cheers. -- Robert