Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] clkdev: change prototype of clk_register_clkdev()

[Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:53:56AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > >  arch/arm/mach-msm/clock-pcom.c         |  9 +++++----
> > >  arch/arm/mach-vexpress/spc.c           |  5 ++++-
> > >  arch/mips/ath79/clock.c                |  6 +++---
> > >  drivers/clk/clk-bcm2835.c              | 12 +++++++-----
> > >  drivers/clk/clk-max-gen.c              |  9 ++++-----
> > >  drivers/clk/clk-xgene.c                |  6 +++---
> > >  drivers/clk/clkdev.c                   | 15 ++++++++++-----
> > >  drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c          | 13 ++++++++-----
> > >  drivers/clk/samsung/clk-s3c2410-dclk.c | 19 +++++++++---------
> > >  drivers/clk/samsung/clk.c              | 35 +++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > >  include/linux/clkdev.h                 |  2 +-
> > >  11 files changed, 75 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-)
> > 
> > What's tying all of these changes together?  It would be better
> > (simpler for you) if you split them up by subsystem and resubmitted.
> 
> I think maybe, just maybe, you might get the answer to that if you read
> the patch.
> 
> You can't change the function signature without creating lots of warnings
> and causing regressions.
> 
> Yes, the function could be renamed whilst doing this change, but that's
> really quite sub-standard in an already busy namespace.

Okay, I can go with that.

If I'm reading this patch correctly, it doesn't actually fix
anything.  What's the thinking behind stopping short?  Why don't you go
the extra inch and free the resources at the appropriate times?