From: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>
Cc: broonie@kernel.org, sameo@linux.intel.com, lgirdwood@gmail.com,
patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: arizona: Factor out SYSCLK enable from wm5102 hardware patch
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:36:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150323143644.GH23705@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150323135213.GH24804@x1>
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 01:52:13PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Charles Keepax wrote:
>
> > wm5102 applies a custom hardware boot sequence, for this the SYSCLK
> > needs to be enabled. This patch factors out the code that enables
> > SYSCLK for this sequence such that it can be used for other boot time
> > operations that require SYSCLK.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
> > ---
<snip>
> > +
> > +static inline int arizona_apply_hardware_patch(struct arizona *arizona)
> > +{
> > + return arizona_exec_with_sysclk(arizona, arizona_hardware_patch_wseq);
>
> Not sure I like this much.
>
> What's the reason for over-complicating this? Can you just:
>
> arizona_exec_with_sysclk(arizona);
> arizona_hardware_patch_wseq(arizona);
>
> ... or if you need that call to be in the middle, split the calls up
> further.
>
Yeah, it was just a handy way to store the state and keep the
amount of code down. But I don't really have any problem with
explicitly storing the state if you prefer that.
So would probably look something like:
struct sysclk_state;
int ret;
ret = arizona_force_sysclk(arizona, &sysclk_state);
if (ret) {
//Handle error
}
ret = arizona_hardware_patch_wseq(arizona);
if (ret) {
//Handle error
}
ret = arizona_restore_sysclk(arizona, &sysclk_state);
if (ret) {
//Handle error
}
I will assume you want it updated to look like this so let me
know if not.
Thanks,
Charles
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-23 14:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-17 16:11 [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: arizona: Factor out SYSCLK enable from wm5102 hardware patch Charles Keepax
2015-03-17 16:11 ` [PATCH v2 2/4] mfd: wm5110: Add register patch required for low power sleep Charles Keepax
2015-03-23 14:13 ` Lee Jones
2015-03-23 14:22 ` Charles Keepax
2015-03-23 14:50 ` Lee Jones
2015-03-17 16:11 ` [PATCH v2 3/4] regulator: arizona-ldo1: Add additional supported voltage Charles Keepax
2015-03-17 16:11 ` [PATCH v2 4/4] mfd: wm5110: Set DCVDD voltage to 1.175V before entering sleep mode Charles Keepax
2015-03-17 17:06 ` Mark Brown
2015-03-23 14:15 ` Lee Jones
2015-03-23 13:52 ` [PATCH v2 1/4] mfd: arizona: Factor out SYSCLK enable from wm5102 hardware patch Lee Jones
2015-03-23 14:36 ` Charles Keepax [this message]
2015-03-23 14:48 ` Lee Jones
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=20150323143644.GH23705@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=broonie@kernel.org \
--cc=lee.jones@linaro.org \
--cc=lgirdwood@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=patches@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=sameo@linux.intel.com \
/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