linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 05/10] MIPS: lantiq: add watchdog support

To: Jamie Iles <jamie@jamieiles.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] MIPS: lantiq: add watchdog support
From: John Crispin <blogic@openwrt.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 12:38:53 +0100
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, Ralph Hempel <ralph.hempel@lantiq.com>, Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org
In-reply-to: <20110106111530.GD2946@pulham.picochip.com>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <1294257379-417-1-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <1294257379-417-6-git-send-email-blogic@openwrt.org> <20110105234910.GD2112@gallagher> <4D25908E.9070509@openwrt.org> <20110106111530.GD2946@pulham.picochip.com>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.12) Gecko/20100913 Icedove/3.0.7
On 06/01/11 12:15, Jamie Iles wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 10:51:10AM +0100, John Crispin wrote:
>   
>> On 06/01/11 00:49, Jamie Iles wrote:
>>     
>>> I think you need a clk_put() here too to balance the clk_get() in the 
>>> probe method so you'll need to keep a reference to the clk.
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> Hi Jamie,
>>
>> i will fold your suggestions into the series.
>>
>> the clk.c/h implementation on the lantiq target is very simple. it only
>> allows to read the static rates of the 3 clocks. clk_put is implemented
>> as follows
>>
>> void
>> clk_put(struct clk *clk)
>> {
>>     /* not used */
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(clk_put);
>>
>> so in theory you are right and we should call that function, however as
>> it is only a stub and the driver is only used by the lantiq target i
>> think it is save to leave out the clk_put(); call. we could however put
>> a commet in the code to make this clear (same as with the clk_enable()
>> not being needed as the clocks are always running)
>>     
> Could that ever change for future devices that share the same watchdog 
> block?  If so, then adding in that clk_put() and clk_enable() might be 
> worth it as it doesn't cost much.
>
> Jamie
>
>   
agreed, i will add both calls.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>