Hello Russell, On Mon, Aug 02, 2021 at 10:48:10AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 02:00:04PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > Hi Russell, hi Stephen, > > > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:41:19AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > +1 This patch doesn't fall under CCF maintainer. > > > > Given that CCF is the only implementer of devm_clk_get at least an Ack > > from your side would still be good I guess? > > I think devm_clk_get() should not be part of CCF but should be > part of the interface level - it's silly to have devm_clk_get() > being CCF but not clk_get(). The same should go for the other > devm wrappers around the plain clk_* interfaces. What is the practical difference between "Function X is part of CCF" and "Function X is part of the clk interface and there is only CCF who implements it"? > > I found a patch set adding devm variants of clk_enable (e.g. > > https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/755667/) but this approach is > > different as it also contains clk_get which IMHO makes more sense > > The discussion considered wrapping get+enable at one point, but I didn't > > find a followup. > > There have been several different approaches to wrapping things up, > but here's a question: should we make it easier to do the lazy thing > (get+enable) or should we make it easier to be power efficient? > Shouldn't we be encouraging people to write power efficient drivers? Yeah, sounds compelling, but I wonder if that's of practical importance. How many driver authors do you expect to lure into making a better driver just because devm_clk_get_prepared() doesn't exist? In contrast: How many drivers become simpler with devm_clk_get_prepared() and so it becomes easier to maintain them and easier to spot bugs? In the absence of devm_clk_get_prepared(), is it better that several frameworks (or drivers) open code it? Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
