From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D41C48BD3 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:54:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87E1921726 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:54:02 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1561575242; bh=f5WpHBtEtFahIw3vdUhL2oQjYqmF7FGf/RrCjS8X2io=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:List-ID:From; b=o4txt7equ/pj2TL8erYLJm6NZxoUKxVQaMvH3F7pftWJK0tBnHHjhVfqvr/folEOZ rz80SpAXQ1oYJ4YDq2yn0Nqz8Df2NmCXSRd058BMdHbzSay8Dg7Hzgn89t+eKBAs8Z 5sYMAM1X2PKC2TmzTDCgV/LxzCWOZhCee44Sr+s4= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726633AbfFZSyB (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:54:01 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:60864 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726104AbfFZSyA (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Jun 2019 14:54:00 -0400 Received: from kernel.org (unknown [104.132.0.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D90C120B1F; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:53:59 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1561575240; bh=f5WpHBtEtFahIw3vdUhL2oQjYqmF7FGf/RrCjS8X2io=; h=In-Reply-To:References:Subject:To:Cc:From:Date:From; b=2DgVwPGP72rgzQZSWHXMghXrWIppNM0nQ8i48SfoOD1tLrP9zDD7brzNtRI0QJOXc Qe+aMbqYbnlToGBRDg97O+pH0iaHjjItDJlEQ5QnLdAvFL8zCBC8FrUnBJnw34Zq/W juX/mJDB/4OZrSjpNW/8We1tG3C7qk6zjbQyeYFo= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20190621093302.GJ23549@piout.net> References: <1560440205-4604-1-git-send-email-claudiu.beznea@microchip.com> <20190618095521.GE23549@piout.net> <929ac20b-db1d-3f7a-b37c-0dfb253156d5@microchip.com> <20190621093302.GJ23549@piout.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] clk: at91: sckc: improve error path To: Alexandre Belloni , Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, claudiu.beznea@gmail.com From: Stephen Boyd User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:53:59 -0700 Message-Id: <20190626185359.D90C120B1F@mail.kernel.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Quoting Alexandre Belloni (2019-06-21 02:33:02) > On 20/06/2019 10:30:42+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > On 18.06.2019 12:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > > On 13/06/2019 15:37:06+0000, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote: > > >> From: Claudiu Beznea > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations > > >> by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures. > > >> > > >=20 > > > Does the platform even boot when the slow clock is not available?=20 > > >=20 > > > The TCB clocksource would fail at: > > >=20 > > > tc.slow_clk =3D of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "slow_clk"); > > > if (IS_ERR(tc.slow_clk)) > > > return PTR_ERR(tc.slow_clk); > > >=20 > >=20 > > In case of using TC as clocksource, yes, the platform wouldn't boot if = slow > > clock is not available, because, anyway the TC needs it. PIT may work > > without it (if slow clock is not used to drive the PIT). > >=20 > > For sure there are other IPs (which may be or are driven by slow clock) > > which may not work if slow clock is driven them. > >=20 > > Anyway, please let me know if you feel this series has no meaning. > >=20 >=20 > Well, I'm not sure it is worth it but at the same time, it is not adding > many lines and you already developed it... >=20 Is that a Reviewed-by or a Rejected-by tag?