From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753606Ab1K1QBb (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:01:31 -0500 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:41119 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752866Ab1K1QBU (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Nov 2011 11:01:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:00:55 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Nicolas Ferre Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, g.liakhovetski@gmx.de, josh.wu@atmel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [media] V4L: atmel-isi: add code to enable/disable ISI_MCK clock Message-ID: <20111128160055.GD11432@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1322487284-3381-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1322487284-3381-1-git-send-email-nicolas.ferre@atmel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 02:34:44PM +0100, Nicolas Ferre wrote: > From: Josh Wu > > This patch > - add ISI_MCK clock enable/disable code. > - change field name in isi_platform_data structure > > Signed-off-by: Josh Wu > [g.liakhovetski@gmx.de: fix label names] > Signed-off-by: Guennadi Liakhovetski > Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre > --- > Guennadi, > > Here is the pach form Josh and yourself about the Atmel ISI driver > modifications. I have rebased it on top of 3.2-rc3 (and tested it on > linux-next also). > I plan to submit the board/device related patches (2-3/3 of this series) to > the arm-soc tree real soon. Do you whant me to include this one or can you > schedulle an inclusion in mainline for 3.3? While you're doing this, why not also prepare for the common clk API by adding support for clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare() to these drivers? We are actually now at the point where we should be saying a firm no to any new introductions of clk_enable()/clk_disable() without there being corresponding clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare() calls for that clk.