Hi,
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 03:28:56PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/23, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> > The composite clock didn't have any unregistration function, which forced
> > us to use clk_unregister directly on it.
> >
> > While it was already not great from an API point of view, it also
On 03/23, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> The composite clock didn't have any unregistration function, which forced
> us to use clk_unregister directly on it.
>
> While it was already not great from an API point of view, it also meant
> that we were leaking the clk_composite structure allocated in
>
Hi Stephen, Mike,
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 05:38:24PM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote:
> The composite clock didn't have any unregistration function, which forced
> us to use clk_unregister directly on it.
>
> While it was already not great from an API point of view, it also meant
> that we were
