On Tue, Mar 08, 2016 at 05:51:47PM +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Hello, > > On Tue, 08 Mar 2016 17:38:11 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > > > And from clk_enable comment we have: > > "" > > clk_enable must not sleep, which differentiates it from clk_prepare. In a > > simple case, clk_enable can be used instead of clk_prepare to ungate a clk > > if the operation will never sleep. > > "" > > > > Moreoever for me the "must" was to insist to the order of the call no to > > the fact that both must be called. > > Right make sense, thanks for correcting me on this. If that's OK from a > clock maintainer point of view, I'm fine. The comment Gregory quoted is an _implementation_ comment: it's saying that you can implement the gating/ungating in either clk_prepare() or clk_enable(). It isn't giving permission for users of the clk API to omit these calls. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html