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
> > wrote:
> > > Ahh, I see. Then I think my first patch was correct albeit it had bad
> > > changelog
> > > message.
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 12:57:54PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 23 November 2012 12:49, Dmitry Torokhov 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
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
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
On 23 November 2012 12:49, Dmitry Torokhov 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
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:30:33AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > You've checked non-ARM architectures too?
> >
> > Yes:
> >
> > [dtor@dtor-d630 linux-next]$ grep -r HAVE_CLK_PREPARE .
> > ./arch/arm/Kconfig:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > You've checked non-ARM architectures too?
>
> Yes:
>
> [dtor@dtor-d630 linux-next]$ grep -r HAVE_CLK_PREPARE .
> ./arch/arm/Kconfig: select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE
> Binary file
>
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:30:33AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > You've checked non-ARM architectures too?
> >
> > Yes:
> >
> > [dtor@dtor-d630 linux-next]$ grep -r HAVE_CLK_PREPARE .
> > ./arch/arm/Kconfig:
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
> > > wrote:
> > > > We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 07:24:07PM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Looks right to me. Just need to remove the select from IMX as well.
Then you don't understand HAVE_CLK_PREPARE.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:38:59PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 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,
On 22 November 2012 08:41, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> CLK: get rid of HAVE_CLK_PREPARE
>
> From: Dmitry Torokhov
>
> HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is automatically selected by COMMON_CLK and the only
> platform that explicitly selects HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is MXS which has been
> switched to common clk framework,
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:38:59PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > 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
On 22 November 2012 02:13, Mike Turquette 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
Quoting Viresh Kumar (2012-11-21 19:34:18)
> On 22 November 2012 02:13, Mike Turquette 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
> >
Quoting Dmitry Torokhov (2012-11-21 19:11:17)
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:38:59PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:54:24PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at
Hi Russell,
On 22 November 2012 15:00, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> Err, no you haven't, not with that grep. What you've found are the places
> which enable this, and say "yes, I have clk_prepare".
>
> What HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is about though is providing a transition path between
> drivers
Hi Russell,
On 22 November 2012 15:00, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
Err, no you haven't, not with that grep. What you've found are the places
which enable this, and say yes, I have clk_prepare.
What HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is about though is providing a transition path
Quoting Dmitry Torokhov (2012-11-21 19:11:17)
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:38:59PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:54:24PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:43:24PM
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
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
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:38:59PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
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
On 22 November 2012 08:41, Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com wrote:
CLK: get rid of HAVE_CLK_PREPARE
From: Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com
HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is automatically selected by COMMON_CLK and the only
platform that explicitly selects HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is MXS which
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:38:59PM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
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
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 07:24:07PM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:
Looks right to me. Just need to remove the select from IMX as well.
Then you don't understand HAVE_CLK_PREPARE.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
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()
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:30:33AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
You've checked non-ARM architectures too?
Yes:
[dtor@dtor-d630 linux-next]$ grep -r HAVE_CLK_PREPARE .
./arch/arm/Kconfig: select
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
You've checked non-ARM architectures too?
Yes:
[dtor@dtor-d630 linux-next]$ grep -r HAVE_CLK_PREPARE .
./arch/arm/Kconfig: select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE
Binary file
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:30:33AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 06:17:50PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
You've checked non-ARM architectures too?
Yes:
[dtor@dtor-d630 linux-next]$ grep -r HAVE_CLK_PREPARE .
./arch/arm/Kconfig: select
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
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
> > wrote:
> > > We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
> > > conversion so let's uninline the pair.
> >
> >
Quoting Viresh Kumar (2012-11-20 02:13:55)
> On 20 November 2012 14:52, Dmitry Torokhov 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
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
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.
On 20 November 2012 14:52, Dmitry Torokhov 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
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:32:42AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:22:17AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
> > conversion so let's uninline the pair.
>
> NAK. This breaks non-common clock using
On 20 November 2012 15:02, Russell King - ARM Linux
wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:22:17AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>> We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
>> conversion so let's uninline the pair.
>
> NAK. This breaks non-common clock using implementations.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:22:17AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
> conversion so let's uninline the pair.
NAK. This breaks non-common clock using implementations.
Why do you need to call this function via a pointer? That sounds
We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
conversion so let's uninline the pair.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov
---
drivers/clk/clk.c | 4
include/linux/clk.h | 68 +
2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 36
We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
conversion so let's uninline the pair.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov dmitry.torok...@gmail.com
---
drivers/clk/clk.c | 4
include/linux/clk.h | 68 +
2 files changed, 36
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:22:17AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
conversion so let's uninline the pair.
NAK. This breaks non-common clock using implementations.
Why do you need to call this function via a pointer? That sounds
On 20 November 2012 15:02, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:22:17AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
conversion so let's uninline the pair.
NAK. This breaks non-common clock using
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:32:42AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 01:22:17AM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_*
conversion so let's uninline the pair.
NAK. This breaks non-common clock using
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
