On Mon, Nov 07, 2022 at 09:43:22AM +0100, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 03:59:53PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > Well, hopefully everyone for whom it's an issue currently will be > > objecting to this version of the change anyway so we'll either know > > where to set the flag or we'll get the whack-a-mole with the series > > being merged? > I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. The only issue to fix at the > moment is that determine_rate and set_parent aren't coupled, and it led > to issues due to oversight. > I initially added a warning but Stephen wanted to fix all users in that > case and make that an error instead. My suggestion is that instead of doing either of these things it'd be quicker and less error prone to just fix the core to provide the default implementation if nothing more specific is provided. Any issues that causes would already be present with your current series. > If I filled __clk_mux_determine_rate into clocks that weren't using it > before, I would change their behavior. With that flag set, on all users > I add __clk_mux_determine_rate to, the behavior is the same than what we > previously had, so the risk of regressions is minimal, and everything > should keep going like it was? The series does fill in __clk_mux_determine_rate for everything though - if it was just assumed by default the only thing that'd be needed would be adding the flag.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
