Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk: fix redefinition of clk_prepare on MIPS with HAVE_LEGACY_CLK

2020-11-27 Thread Stephen Boyd
Quoting Krzysztof Kozlowski (2020-11-25 06:15:05)
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 04:11:31PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > 
> > Ok so this patch isn't necessary then?
> 
> For this particular build failure - it is not necessary anymore.
> 
> However there might more of such errors - just not discovered yet. Also,
> the clock bulk API has such ifdefs so it kind of symmetrical and
> consistent approach.
> 

Ok. Patches always welcome.
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel


Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk: fix redefinition of clk_prepare on MIPS with HAVE_LEGACY_CLK

2020-11-25 Thread Krzysztof Kozlowski
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 04:11:31PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Krzysztof Kozlowski (2020-11-17 23:48:12)
> > On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:41:57PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > Quoting Krzysztof Kozlowski (2020-11-15 09:09:48)
> > > > COMMON_CLK even though is a user-selectable symbol, is still selected by
> > > > multiple other config options.  COMMON_CLK should not be used when
> > > > legacy clocks are provided by architecture, so it correctly depends on
> > > > !HAVE_LEGACY_CLK.
> > > > 
> > > > However it is possible to create a config which selects both COMMON_CLK
> > > > (by SND_SUN8I_CODEC) and HAVE_LEGACY_CLK (by SOC_RT305X) which leads to
> > > 
> > > Why is SND_SUN8I_CODEC selecting COMMON_CLK? Or really, why is
> > > SOC_RT305X selecting HAVE_LEGACY_CLK?
> > 
> > The SND_SUN8I_CODEC I fixed in following patch (I sent separately v2 of
> > it).
> > 
> > The SOC_RT305X select HAVE_LEGACY_CLK? because it is an old, Ralink
> > platform, not converted to Common clock frm. Few clock operations are
> > defined in: arch/mips/ralink/clk.c
> > 
> 
> Ok so this patch isn't necessary then?

For this particular build failure - it is not necessary anymore.

However there might more of such errors - just not discovered yet. Also,
the clock bulk API has such ifdefs so it kind of symmetrical and
consistent approach.

> It seems OK to select
> HAVE_LEGACY_CLK but not to select COMMON_CLK unless it's architecture
> code that can't be enabled when the other architecture code is selecting
> HAVE_LEGACY_CLK.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel


Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk: fix redefinition of clk_prepare on MIPS with HAVE_LEGACY_CLK

2020-11-24 Thread Stephen Boyd
Quoting Krzysztof Kozlowski (2020-11-17 23:48:12)
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:41:57PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Krzysztof Kozlowski (2020-11-15 09:09:48)
> > > COMMON_CLK even though is a user-selectable symbol, is still selected by
> > > multiple other config options.  COMMON_CLK should not be used when
> > > legacy clocks are provided by architecture, so it correctly depends on
> > > !HAVE_LEGACY_CLK.
> > > 
> > > However it is possible to create a config which selects both COMMON_CLK
> > > (by SND_SUN8I_CODEC) and HAVE_LEGACY_CLK (by SOC_RT305X) which leads to
> > 
> > Why is SND_SUN8I_CODEC selecting COMMON_CLK? Or really, why is
> > SOC_RT305X selecting HAVE_LEGACY_CLK?
> 
> The SND_SUN8I_CODEC I fixed in following patch (I sent separately v2 of
> it).
> 
> The SOC_RT305X select HAVE_LEGACY_CLK? because it is an old, Ralink
> platform, not converted to Common clock frm. Few clock operations are
> defined in: arch/mips/ralink/clk.c
> 

Ok so this patch isn't necessary then? It seems OK to select
HAVE_LEGACY_CLK but not to select COMMON_CLK unless it's architecture
code that can't be enabled when the other architecture code is selecting
HAVE_LEGACY_CLK.
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel


Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk: fix redefinition of clk_prepare on MIPS with HAVE_LEGACY_CLK

2020-11-17 Thread Krzysztof Kozlowski
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:41:57PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Krzysztof Kozlowski (2020-11-15 09:09:48)
> > COMMON_CLK even though is a user-selectable symbol, is still selected by
> > multiple other config options.  COMMON_CLK should not be used when
> > legacy clocks are provided by architecture, so it correctly depends on
> > !HAVE_LEGACY_CLK.
> > 
> > However it is possible to create a config which selects both COMMON_CLK
> > (by SND_SUN8I_CODEC) and HAVE_LEGACY_CLK (by SOC_RT305X) which leads to
> 
> Why is SND_SUN8I_CODEC selecting COMMON_CLK? Or really, why is
> SOC_RT305X selecting HAVE_LEGACY_CLK?

The SND_SUN8I_CODEC I fixed in following patch (I sent separately v2 of
it).

The SOC_RT305X select HAVE_LEGACY_CLK? because it is an old, Ralink
platform, not converted to Common clock frm. Few clock operations are
defined in: arch/mips/ralink/clk.c

Best regards,
Krzysztof

___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel


Re: [PATCH 1/3] clk: fix redefinition of clk_prepare on MIPS with HAVE_LEGACY_CLK

2020-11-17 Thread Stephen Boyd
Quoting Krzysztof Kozlowski (2020-11-15 09:09:48)
> COMMON_CLK even though is a user-selectable symbol, is still selected by
> multiple other config options.  COMMON_CLK should not be used when
> legacy clocks are provided by architecture, so it correctly depends on
> !HAVE_LEGACY_CLK.
> 
> However it is possible to create a config which selects both COMMON_CLK
> (by SND_SUN8I_CODEC) and HAVE_LEGACY_CLK (by SOC_RT305X) which leads to

Why is SND_SUN8I_CODEC selecting COMMON_CLK? Or really, why is
SOC_RT305X selecting HAVE_LEGACY_CLK?
___
devel mailing list
de...@linuxdriverproject.org
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel