Hi Benoit, On 20 August 2012 05:21, Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@xxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Omar, > > On 08/03/2012 05:52 PM, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote: >> On 3 August 2012 00:24, Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 8/3/2012 3:50 AM, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote: >>>> So in _enable: >>>> >>>> _enable_clocks(oh); >>>> if (soc_ops.enable_module) >>>> soc_ops.enable_module(oh); >>>> >>>> The enable_module part seems redundant to me, since the module should >>>> be already enabled by the first call to _enable_clocks. >>> >>> Yes they do same thing, I believe the plan is to get rid of all clock >>> leaf-nodes in the near future, and let hwmod handle module >>> enable/disable part. >> >> If this is the case then an enable_module call is needed in my patch >> for when these changes are made. The original works fine but only >> because currently clock framework does what enable_module is doing. > > Yes, that's the case, but I plan to remove most of the leaf clocks ASAP, > so we cannot rely on that. > >> Please let me know if you want me to resend with this change. > > Yes, could you please repost with that change? Not a problem. > It will be good as well that you remove the leaf clock and use the > parent clock of current leaf as the main_clock. In that case it will > ensure that this is the hwmod fmwk that does enable the modulemode and > not the clock fmwk. Ok, let me try that. Thanks for the comments, Omar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
