On Sat, 28 Feb 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > 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 Did you read rest of the set, or just the cover-letter? I referenced 0/0 because it is the thread parent and from there you can drill down into the commits where I believe there is adequate explanation in each. If you could be more specific and tell me which commit you think requires more explanation, I'd be happy to take a look. > 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. Well that is exactly what we're doing. Is there an issue with that? This is a way to do it at a platform level. It means we can support multiple platforms where clocksources have been switched around without writing new driver code in drivers/clk/st. If you have something else in mind, let me know. > 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'm not sure what you mean by this, would you be able to expland a little? > I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm > asking. Please bear in mind that we don't supply our clocks statically. All of the information is extracted from DT, so if the always-on information does reside in there, where do you propose it comes from? We could just write this code inside our own driver and apply the CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED at a local level, but that's not the generic solution I am searching for. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- 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
