Quoting Viresh Kumar (2012-11-21 19:34:18) > On 22 November 2012 02:13, Mike Turquette <mturque...@ti.com> wrote: > > HAVE_CLK logically wraps HAVE_CLK_PREPARE. There is no point in > > selecting HAVE_CLK_PREPARE without HAVE_CLK. > > > > Looking through the code I see that this used to be the case. Commit > > 93abe8e "clk: add non CONFIG_HAVE_CLK routines" moved the > > clk_(un)prepare declarations outside of #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK. That > > commit was authored by you. Can you elaborate on why that aspect of the > > patch was needed? > > Haha... Caught red handed :( > > Before this commit, nothing was enclosed within CONFIG_HAVE_CLK and > this patch only introduced it. I am not really sure, why i kept > prepare/unprepare > out of it though :( > > Maybe because some platform at that time is using it directly, without > CONFIG_HAVE_CLK. Not sure. >
No worries. Looks like everything gets sorted out in the end ;) Regards, Mike > -- > viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
