From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1753803Ab2HCPwN (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:52:13 -0400
Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.220.174]:53240 "EHLO
	mail-vc0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752120Ab2HCPwK (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 3 Aug 2012 11:52:10 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <501B609F.9030403@ti.com>
References: <1342466485-1050-1-git-send-email-omar.luna@linaro.org>
	<1342466485-1050-3-git-send-email-omar.luna@linaro.org>
	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1208020150240.4177@utopia.booyaka.com>
	<CALLhW=6-b+kjfG-u3+uXiD64UwoNEdufjJKu0Mx-sGWp6n9csg@mail.gmail.com>
	<501B609F.9030403@ti.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:52:09 -0500
Message-ID: <CALLhW=7yJTq_cfB=KGY5VT8fNO1u_hrY118ysihFuQA+gVFRuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: revise deassert sequence
From: Omar Ramirez Luna <omar.luna@linaro.org>
To: Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@ti.com>, Paul Walmsley <paul@pwsan.com>
Cc: Benoit Cousson <b-cousson@ti.com>, Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>, Kevin Hilman <khilman@ti.com>,
        Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@wizery.com>,
        Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 3 August 2012 00:24, Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@ti.com> 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.

Paul,

Please let me know if you want me to resend with this change.

Regards,

Omar

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: omar.luna@linaro.org (Omar Ramirez Luna)
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 10:52:09 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: OMAP: hwmod: revise deassert sequence
In-Reply-To: <501B609F.9030403@ti.com>
References: <1342466485-1050-1-git-send-email-omar.luna@linaro.org>
 <1342466485-1050-3-git-send-email-omar.luna@linaro.org>
 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1208020150240.4177@utopia.booyaka.com>
 <CALLhW=6-b+kjfG-u3+uXiD64UwoNEdufjJKu0Mx-sGWp6n9csg@mail.gmail.com>
 <501B609F.9030403@ti.com>
Message-ID: <CALLhW=7yJTq_cfB=KGY5VT8fNO1u_hrY118ysihFuQA+gVFRuQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 3 August 2012 00:24, Vaibhav Hiremath <hvaibhav@ti.com> 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.

Paul,

Please let me know if you want me to resend with this change.

Regards,

Omar