From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Timur Tabi Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: qcom/emac: don't try to claim clocks on ACPI systems Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 15:54:08 -0600 Message-ID: <58506E00.9040801@codeaurora.org> References: <1481658930-565-1-git-send-email-timur@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Florian Fainelli , David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Christopher Covington , alokc@codeaurora.org Return-path: Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.29.96]:53820 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932767AbcLMVyM (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Dec 2016 16:54:12 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/13/2016 03:46 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote: > Is there a reason why the check is not moved down inwo > emac_clks_phase{1,2}_init functions? Do you anticipate other > ACPI-related changes in the future that would warrant having this check > moved at a higher level? No, this is the last ACPI-related change that I expect. I could move the check into those functions, but I don't see how that's any different than what I'm doing now. My way avoids calling a function altogether, your way calls into a function only to have it return immediately. But I don't have any strong feelings either way. I will change it if you want me to. -- Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.