On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 09:30:33AM +0000, 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 HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > Binary file > > ./.git/objects/pack/pack-7dad5ee164f601f1327dc78648fa317772c2d872.pack > > matches > > ./include/linux/clk.h:#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > ./include/linux/clk.h:#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > ./drivers/clk/Kconfig:config HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > ./drivers/clk/Kconfig: select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > 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 using clk_prepare() to platforms which _don't_ have a clk_prepare() > implementation - and when it's unset, it provides a default implementation.
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 drivers/clk/clk.c so __clk_prepare() would either call platform implementation or just be an empty function. Am I correct or I am still missing something? Thanks. -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
