Re: [PATCH] clk: imx: imx93: introduce clk_bypassed module parameter

From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: "Peng Fan (OSS)" <peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>
Cc: abelvesa@kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
	shawnguo@kernel.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de,
	kernel@pengutronix.de, festevam@gmail.com, linux-imx@nxp.com,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: imx: imx93: introduce clk_bypassed module parameter
Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 18:10:42 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2023050410-rejoin-vocation-8560@gregkh> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230504085506.504474-1-peng.fan@oss.nxp.com>

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 04:55:06PM +0800, Peng Fan (OSS) wrote:
> From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> 
> With the clk names specified in clk_bypassed module parameter, give
> user an option to bypass the clk from managing them by Linux kernel.

As I said on another email, no, please do not add new module parameters
for drivers, this is not the 1990s

Also, another comment below:

> @@ -310,6 +357,8 @@ static int imx93_clocks_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>  
>  	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(root_array); i++) {
>  		root = &root_array[i];
> +		if (unlikely(imx_clk_bypass_check(root->name)))
> +			continue;

Only ever use likely/unlikely if you can measure the difference.  Here
on a probe function, you can not, this is not needed at all, the
compiler and CPU will do a better job over time than you can guess at
this.

But as this change isn't needed, this shouldn't be an issue either.

thanks,

greg k-h

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel