On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:35:07AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Wolfram, > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 11:04 AM Wolfram Sang > <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > There is no case (and none forseen) where we would need to disable the > > foreseen Oops, yes. > > > SDn clock. So, for simplicity, remove its handling. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > > > One paradigm is to stay minimal and remove unneeded things. Another one > > is to not change working code unnecessarily. I favor the first one a bit > > more, but would understand arguing with the second one. > > Indeed. > > Does this make the code rely on bootloader setup or reset state? Before, we wrote '0' or '1' to that bit depending on 'stp_ck'. After removing 'stp_ck', we unconditionally write 0. So, I think we are safe.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
