On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:05:04AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:10:26PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:26:56PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:
>
> snip essentially Mike's entire mail - *please* delete irrelevant quotes
> from your replies, it makes it very much easier to find the new text in
> your mail and is much more friendly to people reading mail on mobile
> devices.
I snip not enough? sorry for that. I'll be carefull.
>
> > > +static int __clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
> > > +{
>
> > Could you expose __clk_enable/__clk_disable? I find it hard to implement
> > clk group. clk group means, when a major clk enable/disable, it want a set
> > of other clks enable/disable accordingly.
>
> Shouldn't this be something the core is implementing? I'd strongly
> expect that the clock drivers are relatively dumb and delegate all the
> decision making to the core API. Otherwise it's going to be hard for
> the core to implement any logic that involves working with more than one
> clock like rate change notification, or guarantee that driver requests
> made through the API are satisfied, as the state of the clocks will be
> changing underneath it.
>From my point of view, the first step of generic clk can be, easy to adopt
features of clocks in current mainline git.
Back to the clk group, I have a patch based on Sascha's work.
http://git.linaro.org/gitweb?p=people/riczhao/linux-2.6.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/imx-clk
Thanks
Richard
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
>
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
