On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:08:58AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:57:54PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 23 November 2012 12:49, Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torok...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Ahh, I see. Then I think my first patch was correct albeit it had bad > > > changelog > > > message. If provided stubs for clk_prepare()/clk_unprepare() for > > > platforms that did not define HAVE_CLK and pushed the check for > > > HAVE_CLK_PREPARE down into drivers/clk/clk.c so __clk_prepare() would > > > either call platform implementation or just be an empty function. > > > > > > Am I correct or I am still missing something? > > > > I believe you are still missing it :) > > > > clk.c will only be compiled when we have COMMON_CLK and > > COMMON_CLK selects HAVE_CLK_PREPARE. > > > > So, using HAVE_CLK_PREPARE in clk.c is useless, as its always true. > > I feel, the best solution would be to simply drop patch 1 and apply others. > > Right... OK, I'll drop the first patch. > Removing HAVE_CLK_PREPARE from ARCH_MXS stands valid though. I will send another patch to do that.
Shawn -- 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/
