Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:39:21 +0200 | From | Sebastian Hesselbarth <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clk: provide public clk_is_enabled function |
| |
On 10/06/2013 11:04 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: > On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth > <sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com> wrote: >> Of course, we can do clk_enable, read, clk_disable as said before - and >> given the amount of questions and misinterpretation, I think it is the >> saner way. > > Sorry for any misinterpretation on my end. I agree reading the > register(s) within a clk_enable/clk_disable-protected section is the > most sane option.
Well, as you are not the only one misinterpreting the purpose, I guess it is more about the clk_is_enabled() function itself. Uwe was very right, that it will lead to patches using it in a wrong way.
Using the common enable/disable functions does no harm to our workaround and we will use it.
Thanks for taking the time to raise those questions and surface those critical interpretations early!
Sebastian
| |