Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] clk: st: New always-on clock domain

[Robert Jarzmik]

Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

>> I wonder why there is a need for a new clock when CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED does
>> exist. What is the usecase that is covered by this patchset which is not used by
>> CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED clock flag ?
>> 
>> And if that reason exists, I'd like to find it in the commit message.
>
> The problem is applying that flag in a generic way.
>
> However, I guess you haven't seen this [1] yet?
>
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/2/27/548
I have.

And yet :
 1) This won't go in a _commit_ message (as opposed to cover-letter). Moreover
    it doesn't specify which usecase is not covered by CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED, it
    says, up to my understanding, that is it another way to have to
    CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag applied.

 2) I still fail to see why this is necessary
    IOW why declaring the mandatory always-on clocks with the proper flag should
    be augmented with a new clock list. Isn't the existing flag the generic way
    ?

I might not understand the real motivation behind that of course, that's why I'm
asking.

Cheers.

-- 
Robert
--
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/