Quoting Taniya Das (2019-10-04 10:39:31) > Hi Stephen, > > On 10/3/2019 9:31 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Taniya Das (2019-10-03 03:31:15) > >> Hi Stephen, > >> > >> On 10/1/2019 8:08 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >>> > >>> Why do you want to keep them critical and registered? I'm suggesting > >>> that any clk that is marked critical and doesn't have a parent should > >>> instead become a register write in probe to turn the clk on. > >>> > >> Sure, let me do a one-time enable from probe for the clocks which > >> doesn't have a parent. > >> But I would now have to educate the clients of these clocks to remove > >> using them. > >> > > > > If anyone is using these clks we can return NULL from the provider for > > the specifier so that we indicate there isn't support for them in the > > kernel. At least I hope that code path still works given all the recent > > changes to clk_get(). > > > > Could you please confirm if you are referring to update the below? I wasn't suggesting that explicitly but sure. Something like this would be necessary to make clk_get() pass back a NULL pointer to the caller. Does everything keep working with this change?
