From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751948Ab2DAPe4 (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:34:56 -0400 Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:42347 "EHLO opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751512Ab2DAPex (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2012 11:34:53 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 16:34:50 +0100 From: Mark Brown To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Russell King , Mike Turquette , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get() Message-ID: <20120401153450.GC8971@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1333279960-8497-1-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <1333279960-8497-2-git-send-email-broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F787392.5040308@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qjNfmADvan18RZcF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F787392.5040308@codeaurora.org> X-Cookie: You will have a long and boring life. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --qjNfmADvan18RZcF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 08:26:10AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 4/1/2012 4:32 AM, Mark Brown wrote: > > Documentation/driver-model/devres.txt | 3 +++ > > drivers/clk/clkdev.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > include/linux/clk.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > But why is this part of clkdev.c? devm_clk_get() should work regardless > of the implementation of clk_get() so can we put it into some other file > that is compiled if HAVE_CLK=y so everyone benefits from this and not > just users who select CLKDEV_LOOKUP? Mostly just because clk_get() is part of clkdev.c and I didn't feel like creating a new file, though also because I really hope that we're going to be moving away from open coding clock framework things so that we can start to push clock API usage into non-SoC code. Things like adding new clocks are going to be a part of that. To put it another way, why would a platform want to avoid clkdev? --qjNfmADvan18RZcF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPeHWUAAoJEBus8iNuMP3dpO4P/i4XeS8cZkiKUYXT7/WszGgd 0aJaTlm3XXVQwCuzxXxXb1lBtLSBZhd6a2x3PrgmdevwCFgURH60jGFjtujiofHZ ZoY0m3ieWzG8q4EmvHgwxDOLNVKq6yMCjigHC40FWrUvNTijA5ZdcpyZlQGDZLt5 K/Ou/kkbeBKp05KZswE3yKG/VkeJx3yFdL4JE489T4wAFdmi8VJjhPqDsjolGB4r sr8oXrd4nt9pABVa18PnlMDDJpul+54j/6dbH9Sa8xuVsEtO9T2262cUitquGC+e eW2C8Suq9fygthqJ0twulg5BRS0MVulFuc0s3jVN2/Wwj65n2B4XE/MYJplGS/Xw L/ibkXTYbUjlt8ixiI62L4aqllgH8ZpxtNlOG62Gx3VbsGGc2TolmfRbmATJkaeG xyOVf2m8HQR1040hhxn4NQrK2fkwPXia2Y5Olvi49AK6Y7A/UrvHeQmXINyJtDSb lb7ChEbhByZgl/hGNS5jn5H5I0uukUhvLbU+lvpqFnwCVFvE8BNw5lrfQU75098r mTXbiEn8HYCoJsV33eMir0zATWDl4+CLqbZnX4yMWlsTBZa9ZU9iJmFWpf4nk/sW UDc6WyPF0WVl4rTRUz1BIuG3636PAPgrFUX4vIkVbaP2N4edDNwQQNPPO5nBVJk9 MPxsObs/HLIAl3B2PtGJ =8RQR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qjNfmADvan18RZcF--