-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Sent: 09 March 2024 06:21
To: 'Dan Carpenter' <redacted>; Shradha Todi
[off-list ref]
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-
pci@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-samsung-
soc@vger.kernel.org; mturquette@baylibre.com; jingoohan1@gmail.com;
lpieralisi@kernel.org; kw@linux.com; robh@kernel.org; bhelgaas@google.com;
krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org; alim.akhtar@samsung.com;
linux@armlinux.org.uk; m.szyprowski@samsung.com;
manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org; pankaj.dubey@samsung.com;
gost.dev@samsung.com
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] clk: Provide managed helper to get and enable bulk
clocks

Quoting Shradha Todi (2024-03-06 04:13:03)

quoted

quoted

When clk_bulk_get_all() returns zero then we return success here.

Yes, we are returning success in case there are no clocks as well. In
case there are no clocks defined in the DT-node, then it is assumed
that the driver does not need any clock manipulation for driver
operation. So the intention here is to continue without throwing
error.

Maybe we shouldn't even return the clks to the caller. Do you have any use for
the clk pointers?

The intention to return the clk pointers was in the case where caller wants to
manipulate a particular clock in certain conditions. They can obtain the clock pointer
and use clk_set_parent, clk_set_rate on those particular clocks.
But I understand that in that case users can use existing clk_bulk_get_all() API.
So, should I go ahead and send v7?


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel