Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: revise deassert sequence

[Omar Ramirez Luna]

Hi Benoit,

On 20 August 2012 05:21, Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@xxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Omar,
>
> On 08/03/2012 05:52 PM, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote:
>> On 3 August 2012 00:24, Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@xxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 8/3/2012 3:50 AM, Omar Ramirez Luna wrote:
>>>> So in _enable:
>>>>
>>>>         _enable_clocks(oh);
>>>>         if (soc_ops.enable_module)
>>>>                 soc_ops.enable_module(oh);
>>>>
>>>> The enable_module part seems redundant to me, since the module should
>>>> be already enabled by the first call to _enable_clocks.
>>>
>>> Yes they do same thing, I believe the plan is to get rid of all clock
>>> leaf-nodes in the near future, and let hwmod handle module
>>> enable/disable part.
>>
>> If this is the case then an enable_module call is needed in my patch
>> for when these changes are made. The original works fine but only
>> because currently clock framework does what enable_module is doing.
>
> Yes, that's the case, but I plan to remove most of the leaf clocks ASAP,
> so we cannot rely on that.
>
>> Please let me know if you want me to resend with this change.
>
> Yes, could you please repost with that change?

Not a problem.

> It will be good as well that you remove the leaf clock and use the
> parent clock of current leaf as the main_clock. In that case it will
> ensure that this is the hwmod fmwk that does enable the modulemode and
> not the clock fmwk.

Ok, let me try that.

Thanks for the comments,

Omar
--
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/