Re: [PATCH 04/11] watchdog: ftwdt010: Add clock support

[Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>]

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 04:28:46PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/24, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > Side note: Maybe we _should_ introduce devm_watchdog_clk_prepare_enable()
> > > since this problem affects several watchdog drivers.
> > 
> > Hmmmmmmmmm a special watchdog primitive may be apropriate.
> > Dunno what the clk maintainers think?
> > 
> > Stephen/Mike: do you like that or would you rather see a primitive
> > inside the clock subsystem for this?
> > 
> 
> devm_clk_prepare_enable() was already proposed and then the
> thread went quiet. Re-kickstart it?
> 

It was propsed several times, and each time it went nowhere.
I got the impression that it won't be accepted, presumably because
it can be misused. I have all but given up on it, and I have it on
my task list to replace pretty much each pair of clk_prepare_enable() /
clk_prepare_disable() calls in the watchdog subsystem with
devm_add_action(). Not that I like that "solution", but life
isn't perfect.

Guenter

> I'd still prefer we just disable clks on clk_put(), but Russell
> said we needed to fix all non-common clk implementations of the
> clk API to do that and then I forgot about the topic (so
> anti-climatic). I'm pretty much OK with us merging the temporary
> solution. We can churn again later and remove it all once we
> convert everything into one CCF.
> 
> I'd prefer we also change common clk framework to actually do the
> disable on put though so we flush out any issues early. If the
> two things are packaged together I would be ultra happy. It's not
> like people are going to convert to CCF just so they can get clk
> disable on clk_put() as a feature, but at least we can have it as
> a feature.
> 
> -- 
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project