On 28/05/14 09:02, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 12:39 AM, Srinivas Kandagatla
<srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 26/05/14 15:21, Ulf Hansson wrote:
On 23 May 2014 14:52, <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+ bool explicit_mclk_control;
+ bool cclk_is_mclk;
I can't see why you need to have both these new configurations. Aren't
"cclk_is_mclk" just a fact when you use "explicit_mclk_control".
I also believe I would prefer something like "qcom_clkdiv" instead.
There is a subtle difference between both the flags. Am happy to change it
to qcom_clkdiv.
I think this was due to me wanting the variant variables to be more about
the actual technical difference they indicate rather than pointing to
a certain vendor or variant where that difference occurs.
Yes, that's correct, I think having these two variables seems to be more
generic than qcom_clkdiv.
I will keep it as it is and fix other comments from Ulf in next version.
It's a very minor thing though, if you prefer it this way, go for it.
Thanks,
sirni
Yours,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
