From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Mallon Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 10:10:52 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC,PATCH 1/3] Add a common struct clk Message-Id: <4D53B9AC.8020609@bluewatersys.com> List-Id: References: <1297233693.242364.862698430999.1.gpush@pororo> <4D52F73A.4010707@bluewatersys.com> <20110210100319.GB24710@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> In-Reply-To: <20110210100319.GB24710@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On 10/02/11 23:03, Richard Zhao wrote: > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 09:21:14AM +1300, Ryan Mallon wrote: >> On 02/09/2011 07:41 PM, Jeremy Kerr wrote: >> >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> Couple more comments below. >> >> ~Ryan >> > [...] >>> +int clk_enable(struct clk *clk) >>> +{ >>> + unsigned long flags; >>> + int ret = 0; >>> + >>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&clk->enable_lock, flags); >> WARN_ON(clk->prepare_count = 0); ? >> >>> + if (clk->enable_count = 0&& clk->ops->enable) >>> + ret = clk->ops->enable(clk); >> Does it make sense to have a clock with no enable function which still >> returns success from clk_enable? Do we have any platforms which have >> NULL clk_enable functions? >> >> I think that for enable/disable at least we should require platforms to >> provide functions and oops if they have failed to do so. In the rare >> case that a platform doesn't need to do anything for enable/disable they >> can just supply empty functions. > It's possible to be NULL. So are set_rate/get_rate. > Ideally, if it's NULL: > prepare/unprepare: only call parent's prepare/unprepare > enable/disable: only call parent's enable/disable No, the whole point of the generic framework is that _all_ clock users must call prepare/enable and disable/unprepare. Drivers, etc should not rely on underlying knowledge of a platform. This is why, for instance, clk_enable will warn if prepare count is zero. However, I can see that a clock may be fully enabled by its prepare function and so the enable function is a no-op. User must still call both prepare and enable though. Perhaps this is what you meant? ~Ryan