On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Andrew Lunn <and...@lunn.ch> wrote: >> > I think i can wrap your simple gate clock, to make my "complex" gate >> > clock. What would help is if you would EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL >> > clk_gate_enable() and clk_gate_disable(), since they do exactly what i >> > want. I can then build my own clk_ops structure, with my own >> > unprepare() function. I would probably use DEFINE_CLK_GATE as is, and >> > then at run time, before calling __clk_init() overwrite the .ops with >> > my own version. >> >> Maybe I don't get your point, but clk_unprepare should be used when >> you have to sleep to disable your clock. When clk_gate_disable() is >> exactly why do you want to use clk_unprepare instead of clk_disable? > > I'm trying to avoid having to implement a new clock provider. The > whole point of the generic clk code is to consolidate code. It seems > silly to create a new clk provider which is 95% identical to Mike's > gated provider, if i can avoid it.
I will export the operations in my next patchset, but I'm concerned over how useful this might be... Using your example of struct clk_gate, both clk_gate_enable and clk_gate_disable call to_clk_gate. So you would either have to re-use struct clk_gate for your own needs (which involves hacking up a specific struct clk_gate_foo_ops for your needs) or you could not use struct clk_gate and pack your data identically (struct clk_hw must be the first member) which is too horrible to imagine. Hmm, or you could re-use struct clk_gate but provide your own struct clk_ops AND your own registration functions (since you won't be able to pass in the ops to your clk_register_gate). So that sounds sane, if a bit convoluted. It does re-use code though... Regards, Mike > > If i stuff it into clk_disable(), it means i cannot use the basic gate > clock Mike provides in the generic clock framework. Which is a shame, > since it does exactly what i want in terms of gating the clock. > > If i can use unprepare(), which basic gate does not use, i can use > Mikes code, and just extend it. It is there, it is unused, so why not > use it? > > Andrew _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
