On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Stephen Warren <swarren@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 07/02/2012 06:09 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:34 AM, Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Thursday 28 June 2012 11:58 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: >>>> We had some discussions in the past on your clock reset and external >>>> line request operations which you've had to put into struct clk_tegra. >>>> >>>> Do you need to expose those ops to code in drivers/*? I consider that a >>>> reasonable litmus test to start considering if something should be moved >>>> into the generic clk.h api. >>> >>> >>> Yes, we need these ops in drivers. Peter has sent a patch proposing to move >>> these ops to generic clk. >>> >>> In addition, we also need mechanism/ops to change rate and parent from >>> clk_ops implementation. There was some discussion but I do not know the >>> latest status. >>> >> >> Hi Prashant, >> >> OK, that is good to know. I haven't forgotten about this topic. I'm >> still trying to think of the best way to expose less-common operations >> to drivers... >> >> Based on Stephen's feedback in patch 0 I'll be waiting for another >> version of this series before taking into clk-next. > > Oh, does this series depend on stuff in clk-next? I was intending to > take it through the Tegra tree, since it definitely depends on (in > complex ways through context if nothing else due to to large > split/rename patches) a bunch of commits in Tegra's for-3.6/common-clk > branch. Oops. I just completely zoned out and went into "clk-next maintenance mode". Yeah you had already mentioned that this was for the Tegra tree. Nothing to see here, move along! Regards, Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
