From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@ti.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get()
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:21:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120402172133.GH24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F79DED3.4070007@codeaurora.org>
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 10:16:03AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 04/02/12 10:08, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Utter crap. Deleting them makes the non-common clock implementations
> > unsafe. If a struct clk is provided by a module (and we do have some
> > which are) then the module reference count has to be held. That's
> > what these hooks do.
> >
> > When these platforms get converted over to the common clock, and the
> > issues surrounding dynamically registered and removed clocks are sane,
> > these hooks have to be used by the common clock to deal with the
> > refcounting so that common code knows when the structures can be freed.
>
> I'm saying that when every platform is using the common clock code we
> would only have one __clk_get() implementation and we should be able to
> delete clkdev.h entirely.
No you did not, you said quite clearly that clkdev should go away and
be replaced by something else, because you see clkdev as just another
"platform specific implementation" (your words). You were definitely
not talking about _just_ the backends for clkdev's clk_get().
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-02 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-04-01 11:32 [PATCH 1/2] clk: Fix comment for end of CONFIG_COMMON_CLK section Mark Brown
2012-04-01 11:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get() Mark Brown
2012-04-01 15:26 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-01 15:34 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-02 16:48 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 16:52 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:04 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 17:08 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:16 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 17:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2012-04-02 17:34 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-04-02 18:02 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:16 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-02 17:30 ` Turquette, Mike
2012-04-02 17:04 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-02 17:34 ` Mark Brown
2012-04-02 18:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-01 13:02 ` [PATCH 1/2] clk: Fix comment for end of CONFIG_COMMON_CLK section Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-04-01 14:29 ` Mark Brown
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120402172133.GH24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mturquette@ti.com \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).