From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2013 13:39:32 -0700
Subject: [PATCH V2 1/3] clk: Restructure code for __clk_reparent
In-Reply-To: <CAPDyKFr3yE6-=OFX=SSfiew95mXQELJTCsGCiXZMZc8G1gdA=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1363873693-30902-1-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>
 <1363873693-30902-2-git-send-email-ulf.hansson@stericsson.com>
 <20130321205310.834.2857@quantum>
 <CAPDyKFr3yE6-=OFX=SSfiew95mXQELJTCsGCiXZMZc8G1gdA=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20130322203932.834.71282@quantum>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Quoting Ulf Hansson (2013-03-22 04:08:09)
> On 21 March 2013 21:53, Mike Turquette <mturquette@linaro.org> wrote:
> > Quoting Ulf Hansson (2013-03-21 06:48:11)
> >> +void __clk_reparent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *new_parent)
> >> +{
> >> +       clk_reparent(clk, new_parent);
> >> +       clk_debug_reparent(clk, new_parent);
> >>         __clk_recalc_rates(clk, POST_RATE_CHANGE);
> >>  }
> >>
> >> @@ -1364,7 +1378,9 @@ int clk_set_parent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *parent)
> >>         }
> >>
> >>         /* propagate rate recalculation downstream */
> >> -       __clk_reparent(clk, parent);
> >> +       clk_reparent(clk, parent);
> >> +       clk_debug_reparent(clk, parent);
> >> +       __clk_recalc_rates(clk, POST_RATE_CHANGE);
> >>
> >
> > This is an interesting change.  Why not call __clk_reparent here instead
> > of open coding an identical sequence?
> 
> By lazyness when rebasing patches I decided to keep it. :-) Well, my
> idea here was also to make it visible how these three calls will be
> split out to be called from three different places.
> 
> Do you want me to fixup?
> 

Please do.  It seems you'll be sending another version anyways so just
roll it in :)

Thanks much,
Mike

> Br
> Uffe
> 
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mike