From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth) Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:39:21 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] clk: provide public clk_is_enabled function In-Reply-To: References: <1380881310-24345-1-git-send-email-sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> <20131005202430.GI10079@pengutronix.de> <20131005204208.GB28106@lunn.ch> <20131006090609.GK14747@book.gsilab.sittig.org> <20131006163011.GA30818@lunn.ch> <5251BD09.3050900@gmail.com> <20131006200223.32214.4440@quantum> <5251E334.2070008@gmail.com> Message-ID: <52527339.9090701@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/06/2013 11:04 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth > wrote: >> Of course, we can do clk_enable, read, clk_disable as said before - and >> given the amount of questions and misinterpretation, I think it is the >> saner way. > > Sorry for any misinterpretation on my end. I agree reading the > register(s) within a clk_enable/clk_disable-protected section is the > most sane option. Well, as you are not the only one misinterpreting the purpose, I guess it is more about the clk_is_enabled() function itself. Uwe was very right, that it will lead to patches using it in a wrong way. Using the common enable/disable functions does no harm to our workaround and we will use it. Thanks for taking the time to raise those questions and surface those critical interpretations early! Sebastian