From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] clk: qcom: Add Global Clock controller (GCC) driver for SC7180 Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 16:20:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20191004232022.062A1215EA@mail.kernel.org> References: <20190918095018.17979-1-tdas@codeaurora.org> <20190924231223.9012C207FD@mail.kernel.org> <347780b9-c66b-01c4-b547-b03de2cf3078@codeaurora.org> <20190925130346.42E0820640@mail.kernel.org> <35f8b699-6ff7-9104-5e3d-ef4ee8635832@codeaurora.org> <20191001143825.CD3212054F@mail.kernel.org> <7ac5f6bf-33c5-580e-bd40-e82f3052d460@codeaurora.org> <20191003160130.5A19B222D0@mail.kernel.org> <81a2fa46-a7e6-66a2-9649-009f22813c81@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <81a2fa46-a7e6-66a2-9649-009f22813c81@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Turquette , Taniya Das , robh+dt@kernel.org Cc: David Brown , Rajendra Nayak , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org Quoting Taniya Das (2019-10-04 10:39:31) > Hi Stephen, >=20 > On 10/3/2019 9:31 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Taniya Das (2019-10-03 03:31:15) > >> Hi Stephen, > >> > >> On 10/1/2019 8:08 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>> > >>> Why do you want to keep them critical and registered? I'm suggesting > >>> that any clk that is marked critical and doesn't have a parent should > >>> instead become a register write in probe to turn the clk on. > >>> > >> Sure, let me do a one-time enable from probe for the clocks which > >> doesn't have a parent. > >> But I would now have to educate the clients of these clocks to remove > >> using them. > >> > >=20 > > If anyone is using these clks we can return NULL from the provider for > > the specifier so that we indicate there isn't support for them in the > > kernel. At least I hope that code path still works given all the recent > > changes to clk_get(). > >=20 >=20 > Could you please confirm if you are referring to update the below? I wasn't suggesting that explicitly but sure. Something like this would be necessary to make clk_get() pass back a NULL pointer to the caller. Does everything keep working with this change?