From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de (Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?=) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 09:16:41 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 04/10] clk: implement parent pass through functions In-Reply-To: References: <1302894495-6879-1-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <1302894495-6879-5-git-send-email-s.hauer@pengutronix.de> <4DADC45C.1020202@codeaurora.org> <20110419175318.GB15233@pengutronix.de> <20110419190910.GQ31131@pengutronix.de> Message-ID: <20110420071641.GR31131@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:54:21PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote: > > > +1 for letting the core enable/disable and prepare/unprepare the parent > > > clocks. I scanned the different arm clock implementations and they all > > > do it, except the ones which do not implement parents at all. > > Then the question is if all do handle parents in the same way. (i.e. > > in enable do parent first, in disable do child first?) > > That's not a question at all. Anything which does it the other way > round is broken. Period. I havn't checked, but I remember Jeremy not wanting to handle parents in the generic part because he saw some differences. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-K?nig | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ |