On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:54:24PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: > > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2012-11-20 02:13:55) > > > On 20 November 2012 14:52, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_* > > > > conversion so let's uninline the pair. > > > > > > Sorry, but you aren't doing this :( > > > This routine is already uninlined as it is in clk.c > > > > > > Instead you are just moving clk_prepare(), etc calls within > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK > > > #else > > > #endif > > > > > > I doubt why they have been added under #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > > earlier. Can they exist without CONFIG_HAVE_CLK > > > > > > @Mike: ? > > > > > > > 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? > > > > BTW, it looks like the only place where we select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is > IMX platform and it also selects COMMON_CLK so I think HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > can be removed now.
You've checked non-ARM architectures too? -- 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/
