Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does >> exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not used by >> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ? >> >> And if that reason exists, I'd like to find it in the commit message. > > The problem is applying that flag in a generic way. > > However, I guess you haven't seen this [1] yet? > > [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/27/548 I have. And yet : 1) This won't go in a _commit_ message (as opposed to cover-letter). Moreover it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied. 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way ? I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm asking. Cheers. -- Robert -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
