From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tony Lindgren Subject: Re: [PATCH] Replace clk_use/unuse with clk_enable/disable, please test Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:52:40 -0800 Message-ID: <20060116185239.GJ4511@atomide.com> References: <20060114011236.GQ5499@atomide.com> <7AF192DA69C59243838FF62851F64F5501B00F46@toebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7AF192DA69C59243838FF62851F64F5501B00F46@toebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com Errors-To: linux-omap-open-source-bounces@linux.omap.com To: Toshihiro.Kobayashi@nokia.com Cc: linux-omap-open-source@linux.omap.com List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org * Toshihiro.Kobayashi@nokia.com [060116 02:16]: > Hi, > > Here's a further patch to centralize the pm code. (patch-dsp_ckfix3) Thanks, pushing today. > >From: ext Tony Lindgren [mailto:tony@atomide.com] > >Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 10:13 AM > > >Thanks for deciphering it :) I wonder if we could just take care of the > >temporary enable in the clock framework? > > I tried, please look at the one more patch. > (patch-clk_enable_force-test) > But I myself don't agree with this patch ;-( OK > I feel it's too arbitrate to add clk_enable_force() and > clk_disable_force() to the clk_functions struct, only for the > pm code. And I think it's OK to do raw register accesses within > the pm code, including clock enableing / disabling, since anyway > the assembler part (omapXXXX_idle_loop_suspend) does such > operations. Yeah, some direct register access is needed in PM code... Tony