On 10 September 2014 10:38, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 09:25 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
>> Quoting Mike Turquette (2014-09-09 12:12:05)
>>> Quoting Tomeu Vizoso (2014-09-09 07:04:57)
In preparation to change the public API to return a per-user clk structure,
remove any usage of t
On 09/09/2014 09:25 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Mike Turquette (2014-09-09 12:12:05)
>> Quoting Tomeu Vizoso (2014-09-09 07:04:57)
>>> In preparation to change the public API to return a per-user clk structure,
>>> remove any usage of this public API from the clock implementations.
>>>
>>>
On 09/09/2014 09:12 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> Quoting Tomeu Vizoso (2014-09-09 07:04:57)
>> In preparation to change the public API to return a per-user clk structure,
>> remove any usage of this public API from the clock implementations.
>>
>> The reason for having this in a separate commit from
On 09/09/14 12:25, Mike Turquette wrote:
>
> I'm starting to get nervous about this Coccinelle script... Seems like a
> lot of things are slipping through.
>
Do we need to make this huge invasive change to every clock driver? If
we gave every clk_hw instance it's own private struct clk pointer at
Quoting Mike Turquette (2014-09-09 12:12:05)
> Quoting Tomeu Vizoso (2014-09-09 07:04:57)
> > In preparation to change the public API to return a per-user clk structure,
> > remove any usage of this public API from the clock implementations.
> >
> > The reason for having this in a separate commit
Quoting Tomeu Vizoso (2014-09-09 07:04:57)
> In preparation to change the public API to return a per-user clk structure,
> remove any usage of this public API from the clock implementations.
>
> The reason for having this in a separate commit from the one that introduces
> the implementation of th
6 matches
Mail list logo
