From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:38:16 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] clk: sunxi: delay protected clocks until arch initcall In-Reply-To: <7334994.mKnQpNNMP2@diego> References: <1453385439-10154-1-git-send-email-emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk> <1453385439-10154-2-git-send-email-emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk> <20160127153722.GC4317@lukather> <7334994.mKnQpNNMP2@diego> Message-ID: <20160127203816.GU4317@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 05:14:17PM +0100, Heiko St?bner wrote: > Hi, > > Am Mittwoch, 27. Januar 2016, 16:37:22 schrieb Maxime Ripard: > > I thought the patches were simply dropped and the > > rockchip people just took another approach. > > nope still on track ... especially as it was Stephen's believe that orphans > shouldn't even be usable to general clock users :-). > > I just remember that the proposed general solution was based on Mike's > upcoming generic critical clock handling (the handoff thingy), which would > move critical clock handling out of architecture-specific code, so I've been > prodding Mike mainly. > > Another option might be to allow clock-controllers to handle orphans and only > deny orphan usage to outside clock users, maybe expanding on what I did with > the clock-conf part in patch2. I'm not sure that would solve anything in our case. All our clocks drivers are different ones, so I'm not sure how we could handle that. Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: