On 04/08, Ralf Baechle wrote: > > While your argument makes perfect sense, Many clk_disable implementations > are already doing similar checks, for example: > > arch/arm/mach-davinci/clock.c: > [...] > > So should we go and weed out these checks?
Yes, it would be nice to at least make the differing implementations of the clk API consistent. Of course, we should really put our efforts towards getting rid of the non-CCF implementations instead so that there's less confusion overall. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
