2016-03-22 9:55 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Jun Nie wrote: >> >> 2016-03-22 4:39 GMT+08:00 Timur Tabi <timur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> Jun Nie wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> @@ -2570,9 +2608,17 @@ static int pl011_uart_plat_probe(struct >>>> platform_device *pdev) >>>> if (!uap) >>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>> >>>> + uap->clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL); >>>> + if (IS_ERR(uap->clk)) >>>> + return PTR_ERR(uap->clk); >>>> + >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't this is supposed to be part of your patch, and it breaks my ACPI >>> platform anyway. Where did it come from? >>> >> Is it OK to move to device tree part, I mean if (pdev->dev.of_node) >> clause? It is part of my patch, I am not aware ACPI requirement on >> this. > > > But this is not restricted to the ZTE platform. Your patch says, "compete > support to ZTE uart" (maybe you should reword that to "add support for ZTE > UARTs"). However, this change affects ALL platforms. If you move it to the > device tree part, it will affect ALL device tree platforms. That's not > "adding ZTE support". That's a fair comment. I suppose all platform need to enable clock for the device. For device tree case, we need these code for clock enabling. For ACPI case, it may be handled automatically. If you agree my opinion, I will move these lines to patch 1. Please correct me if I am wrong. Jun > > -- > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the > Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
