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. -- 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/
