On Wed Feb 11, 2026 at 5:37 PM CET, Maxime Ripard wrote: > I do think we can find a compromise though. Miguel suggested for example > to make the current enable/prepare/disable/unprepare function unsafe, > and that's totally reasonable to me. > > Then we can implement the "managed" clock version on that unsafe API,
What do you mean with "managed" clock? Do you mean devres managed? If so, I don't think there is any reason to switch to the unsafe API to be able to implement devres managed APIs (see also [1]). [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > and we would end up with a "raw", unsafe, version kind of equivalent to > the one we have today, and where callers would have to justify why their > usage of the API is actually safe, or the new, managed, variant that is > safe and can be easily used by most drivers. > > And we can call these RawClk vs Clk, or Clk vs ManagedClk, or whatever. > > How does that sound? What about we just wait until we have a user that really requires an unsafe API for some reason? And if it never appears, even better. :)
