On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:12 PM Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 10/6/21 6:37 PM, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > > On 10/6/21 11:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 10:51:52AM -0500, Pierre-Louis Bossart wrote: > >>> On 10/6/21 10:04 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: ... > >>> I don't get why you removed the test on the BYT_RT5651_MCLK_EN quirk, > >>> see below it was designed as a fall-back mode. We don't want to return > >>> an error when we know the clock is not present/desired. > >> > >> Why should we do a unneeded test? When we switch to the optional, there > >> will be no error from these CCF APIs. Besides that it drops indentation > >> level and makes code neat. > > > > By looking at this code only one cannot really visualize that it's a > > no-op. I personally prefer to see explicit intent rather than have to > > dig hundreds of lines below what this clock is optional. > > > > I am also not even sure that in real products this clock is actually > > optional, the default is to make use of it: > > > > #define BYT_RT5651_DEFAULT_QUIRKS (BYT_RT5651_MCLK_EN | \ > > > > and the only platform without this clock is "Minnowboard Max B3" - > > probably not used by anyone. I fried mine a long time ago. > > > > We'd need to Hans to comment on this since he's really the only one > > maintaining this code. > > So as Mark wrote in his later reply: > > "AIUI with the clock API the idiomatic thing is that any optionality is > handled at the point where the clock is acquired - if the clock is > optional you end up with NULL which in the clock API is a dummy clock > and ignored. The rest of the code then doesn't need to worry about any > of this stuff and the handling can only be in one place." > > Combined with there pretty much always actually being an mclk I believe > that this patch from Andy results in a nice cleanup so I'm in favor with > this. And the other cleanups also look sensible to me Thanks! > I would like to run a small smoke-test with both the series to make > sure nothing regresses (should be fine but better safe then sorry). Thanks ahead! > Andy I believe that there is going to be a v2 to address a couple > of nitpicks, right ? Right. > Note for testing I would prefer a full v2 series, even if some > patches don't change. And I assume the same applies to Mark for > applying this. > > Sending partial series with only changed patches on the v2 > send turns things into a puzzle, which is not ideal IMHO. I'll do it tomorrow. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
