From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:11:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v6 4/4] clk: dt: Introduce binding for always-on clock support In-Reply-To: References: <1428432239-4114-5-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20150407191746.GA26727@lukather> <20150408081450.GB5162@x1> <20150408094349.GC26727@lukather> <20150408103832.GG5162@x1> <20150408155705.GF26727@lukather> <20150408172344.GH5162@x1> <20150422093446.GA28007@lukather> <20150429141751.GR9169@x1> Message-ID: <20150429151147.GX9169@x1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Wed, 29 Apr 2015, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Lee Jones wrote: > > This useful binding should be accepted and people should not abuse > > it. If they do and the vendor Maintainer's review and accept then > > they have no foundation for recourse. > > > > Would you prefer it if I made the warning starker? > > Perhaps you can add a check for "clock-always-on" to scripts/checkpatch.pl, > to make people aware they should think twice? That's a really nice idea! Maxime, would that make you happ(y|ier)? > Nah, people don't read documentation, don't run checkpatch, ignore compiler > warnings, etc... :) You can only wrap people in so much cotton wool. If they then decide to ignore all the warnings and jump, woe betide them. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog