From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com (Dmitry Torokhov) Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:19:31 -0800 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] CLK: uninline clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare() In-Reply-To: <20121122093033.GA5764@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> 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> <20121121205424.GA25470@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20121121223859.GQ3290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20121122021750.GD25470@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20121122093033.GA5764@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20121123071931.GB12631@core.coreip.homeip.net> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:30:33AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > You've checked non-ARM architectures too? > > > > Yes: > > > > [dtor at dtor-d630 linux-next]$ grep -r HAVE_CLK_PREPARE . > > ./arch/arm/Kconfig: select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > Binary file ./.git/objects/pack/pack-7dad5ee164f601f1327dc78648fa317772c2d872.pack matches > > ./include/linux/clk.h:#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > ./include/linux/clk.h:#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > ./drivers/clk/Kconfig:config HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > ./drivers/clk/Kconfig: select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > Err, no you haven't, not with that grep. What you've found are the places > which enable this, and say "yes, I have clk_prepare". > > What HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is about though is providing a transition path between > drivers using clk_prepare() to platforms which _don't_ have a clk_prepare() > implementation - and when it's unset, it provides a default implementation. Ahh, I see. Then I think my first patch was correct albeit it had bad changelog message. If provided stubs for clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare() for platforms that did not define HAVE_CLK and pushed the check for HAVE_CLK_PREPARE down into drivers/clk/clk.c so __clk_prepare() would either call platform implementation or just be an empty function. Am I correct or I am still missing something? Thanks. -- Dmitry