On 28 May 2014 10:28, Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. > I think this relates to the discussion we had around fetching the f_min and f_max in ->probe(). It, just seems silly to have to check for an extra flag there as well, because that is in principle what this would mean, right? So, please adjust to my proposal, I strongly think this should be only one flag. You might want a more generic name of the flag in favour of qcom_clkdiv, feel free to change to whatever you think make sense. Kind regards Ulf Hansson > >> 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-mmc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
