From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932671Ab2KVVo4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:44:56 -0500 Received: from mail-da0-f46.google.com ([209.85.210.46]:59159 "EHLO mail-da0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932628Ab2KVVop (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Nov 2012 16:44:45 -0500 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:17:50 -0800 From: Dmitry Torokhov To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Mike Turquette , Viresh Kumar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] CLK: uninline clk_prepare() and clk_unprepare() Message-ID: <20121122021750.GD25470@core.coreip.homeip.net> References: <1353403339-11679-1-git-send-email-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <1353403339-11679-2-git-send-email-dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> <20121121204324.21126.99677@nucleus> <20121121205424.GA25470@core.coreip.homeip.net> <20121121223859.GQ3290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121121223859.GQ3290@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 10:38:59PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:54:24PM -0800, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:43:24PM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: > > > Quoting Viresh Kumar (2012-11-20 02:13:55) > > > > On 20 November 2012 14:52, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > We'll need to invoke clk_unprepare() via a pointer in our devm_* > > > > > conversion so let's uninline the pair. > > > > > > > > Sorry, but you aren't doing this :( > > > > This routine is already uninlined as it is in clk.c > > > > > > > > Instead you are just moving clk_prepare(), etc calls within > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK > > > > #else > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > I doubt why they have been added under #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > > > earlier. Can they exist without CONFIG_HAVE_CLK > > > > > > > > @Mike: ? > > > > > > > > > > HAVE_CLK logically wraps HAVE_CLK_PREPARE. There is no point in > > > selecting HAVE_CLK_PREPARE without HAVE_CLK. > > > > > > Looking through the code I see that this used to be the case. Commit > > > 93abe8e "clk: add non CONFIG_HAVE_CLK routines" moved the > > > clk_(un)prepare declarations outside of #ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK. That > > > commit was authored by you. Can you elaborate on why that aspect of the > > > patch was needed? > > > > > > > BTW, it looks like the only place where we select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE is > > IMX platform and it also selects COMMON_CLK so I think HAVE_CLK_PREPARE > > can be removed now. > > You've checked non-ARM architectures too? Yes: [dtor@dtor-d630 linux-next]$ grep -r HAVE_CLK_PREPARE . ./arch/arm/Kconfig: select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE Binary file ./.git/objects/pack/pack-7dad5ee164f601f1327dc78648fa317772c2d872.pack matches ./include/linux/clk.h:#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE ./include/linux/clk.h:#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_CLK_PREPARE ./drivers/clk/Kconfig:config HAVE_CLK_PREPARE ./drivers/clk/Kconfig: select HAVE_CLK_PREPARE Thanks. -- Dmitry