From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752375AbbCWOgs (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:36:48 -0400
Received: from opensource.wolfsonmicro.com ([80.75.67.52]:45016 "EHLO
	opensource.wolfsonmicro.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752106AbbCWOgq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:36:46 -0400
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:36:44 +0000
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
Message-ID: <20150323143644.GH23705@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
References: <1426608672-4895-1-git-send-email-ckeepax@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <20150323135213.GH24804@x1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150323135213.GH24804@x1>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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