Re: [PATCH 4/6] ARM: tegra: Add clk_tegra structure and helper functions

[Turquette, Mike]

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-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/