From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com (Dmitry Torokhov) Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:54:24 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] CLK: uninline clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare() In-Reply-To: <20121121204324.21126.99677@nucleus> References: <1353403339-11679-1-git-send-email-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <1353403339-11679-2-git-send-email-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20121121204324.21126.99677@nucleus> Message-ID: <20121121205424.GA25470@core.coreip.homeip.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2012-11-20 02:13:55) > > On 20 November 2012 14:52, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_* > > > conversion so let's uninline the pair. > > > > Sorry, but you aren't doing this :( > > This routine is already uninlined as it is in clk.c > > > > Instead you are just moving clk_prepare(), etc calls within > > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK > > #else > > #endif > > > > I doubt why they have been added under #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > earlier. Can they exist without CONFIG_HAVE_CLK > > > > @Mike: ? > > > > HAVE_CLK logically wraps HAVE_CLK_PREPARE. There is no point in > selecting HAVE_CLK_PREPARE without HAVE_CLK. > > Looking through the code I see that this used to be the case. Commit > 93abe8e "clk: add non CONFIG_HAVE_CLK routines" moved the > clk_(un)prepare declarations outside of #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK. That > commit was authored by you. Can you elaborate on why that aspect of the > patch was needed? > BTW, it looks like the only place where we select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is IMX platform and it also selects COMMON_CLK so I think HAVE_CLK_PREPARE can be removed now. Thanks. -- Dmitry