> -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 09 March 2024 06:21 > To: 'Dan Carpenter' <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>; Shradha Todi > <shradha.t@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: linux-clk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > pci@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-samsung- > soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; mturquette@xxxxxxxxxxxx; jingoohan1@xxxxxxxxx; > lpieralisi@xxxxxxxxxx; kw@xxxxxxxxx; robh@xxxxxxxxxx; bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx; > krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx; alim.akhtar@xxxxxxxxxxx; > linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; m.szyprowski@xxxxxxxxxxx; > manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx; pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx; > gost.dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] clk: Provide managed helper to get and enable bulk > clocks > > Quoting Shradha Todi (2024-03-06 04:13:03) > > > > > > When clk_bulk_get_all() returns zero then we return success here. > > > > > > > Yes, we are returning success in case there are no clocks as well. In > > case there are no clocks defined in the DT-node, then it is assumed > > that the driver does not need any clock manipulation for driver > > operation. So the intention here is to continue without throwing > > error. > > Maybe we shouldn't even return the clks to the caller. Do you have any use for > the clk pointers? The intention to return the clk pointers was in the case where caller wants to manipulate a particular clock in certain conditions. They can obtain the clock pointer and use clk_set_parent, clk_set_rate on those particular clocks. But I understand that in that case users can use existing clk_bulk_get_all() API. So, should I go ahead and send v7?
