From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laxman Dewangan Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:29:20 +0530 Message-ID: <4FEB2DD8.4090904@nvidia.com> References: <1340196960-3002-1-git-send-email-ldewangan@nvidia.com> <4FE1F9A0.6080200@wwwdotorg.org> <4FE1F9D6.6090802@wwwdotorg.org> <4FE83374.6090608@nvidia.com> <4FE889D6.4030500@wwwdotorg.org> <4FE9564C.4010502@nvidia.com> <4FE9E338.6090601@wwwdotorg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FE9E338.6090601@wwwdotorg.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Warren Cc: "w.sang@pengutronix.de" , "khali@linux-fr.org" , Stephen Warren , "linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Prashant Gaikwad List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: > On 06/26/2012 12:27 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >> On Monday 25 June 2012 09:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>> On 06/25/2012 03:46 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>>> Stephen, >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>> On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote: >>>>>> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote: >>>>>>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable(). >>>>>>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to >>>>>>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework. >>>>> ... >>>>>> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the >>>>>> I2C tree though. >>>>> Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately >>>>> not as >>>>> a series. >>>> so are you taking care of this patch or do I need to send the patch >>>> based on your tree in place of linux-next? >>> Yes, this patch should be applied through the Tegra tree, since it will >>> be a dependency of the common clock framework switchover there, which I >>> hope to take place this kernel cycle. >>> >>> I did just attempt to apply this patch to the for-3.6/common-clk branch, >>> but it doesn't apply:-( Could you please rebase and resend. Thanks. >> Looked at your common_clk branch and the related code is not there. >> The clk_disable() in the particular case is introduced by change >> i2c: tegra: make all resource allocation through devm_* >> which is not in your branch. >> >> Then later Prashant post the change as >> i2c: tegra: Add clk_prepare/clk_unprepare >> and it does not accounted for the above patch. >> >> So none of your local tree will have this issue. > OK. In that case, it's best if this patch goes through the I2C tree > since that's where the code is that it's modifying. This might not be > optimal for runtime git bisection depending on the order Linus ends up > merging things, but it's probably as good as we can do without > inter-twining the I2C and Tegra trees a lot. Then it can go Wolfram's tree along with other patch i2c: tegra: remove unused member variable. as some of previous i2c patches are in his tree.