On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:05:04AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:10:26PM +0800, Richard Zhao wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:26:56PM -0700, Mike Turquette wrote:

snip essentially Mike's entire mail - *please* delete irrelevant quotes
from your replies, it makes it very much easier to find the new text in
your mail and is much more friendly to people reading mail on mobile
devices.

I snip not enough? sorry for that. I'll be carefull.

quoted

quoted

+static int __clk_enable(struct clk *clk)
+{

quoted

Could you expose __clk_enable/__clk_disable? I find it hard to implement
clk group. clk group means, when a major clk enable/disable, it want a set
of other clks enable/disable accordingly.

Shouldn't this be something the core is implementing?  I'd strongly
expect that the clock drivers are relatively dumb and delegate all the
decision making to the core API.  Otherwise it's going to be hard for
the core to implement any logic that involves working with more than one
clock like rate change notification, or guarantee that driver requests
made through the API are satisfied, as the state of the clocks will be
changing underneath it.