From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Srinivas Kandagatla Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/13] mmc: mmci: add explicit clk control Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 09:28:55 +0100 Message-ID: <53859E47.2040701@linaro.org> References: <1400849362-7007-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <1400849578-7585-1-git-send-email-srinivas.kandagatla@linaro.org> <5383C28D.1060808@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f169.google.com ([74.125.82.169]:34711 "EHLO mail-we0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932066AbaE1I3B (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2014 04:29:01 -0400 Received: by mail-we0-f169.google.com with SMTP id u56so10985979wes.14 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 01:28:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Ulf Hansson , Russell King , linux-mmc , Chris Ball , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" On 28/05/14 09:02, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla > wrote: >> On 26/05/14 15:21, Ulf Hansson wrote: >>> On 23 May 2014 14:52, wrote: > >>>> >>>> + bool explicit_mclk_control; >>>> + bool cclk_is_mclk; >>> >>> I can't see why you need to have both these new configurations. Aren't >>> "cclk_is_mclk" just a fact when you use "explicit_mclk_control". >> >>> I also believe I would prefer something like "qcom_clkdiv" instead. >> >> There is a subtle difference between both the flags. Am happy to change it >> to qcom_clkdiv. > > I think this was due to me wanting the variant variables to be more about > the actual technical difference they indicate rather than pointing to > a certain vendor or variant where that difference occurs. > Yes, that's correct, I think having these two variables seems to be more generic than qcom_clkdiv. I will keep it as it is and fix other comments from Ulf in next version. > It's a very minor thing though, if you prefer it this way, go for it. > Thanks, sirni > Yours, > Linus Walleij >