This list is for users and developers of the i2c subsystem and i2c bus drivers in Linux 2.4 and 2.6.

Laxman Dewangan | 20 Jun 2012 14:56

[PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.

Signed-off-by: Laxman Dewangan <ldewangan@...>
---
 drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
index 00cdc10..d071cf0 100644
--- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
+++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-tegra.c
 <at>  <at>  -696,7 +696,7  <at>  <at>  static int __devinit tegra_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
 	ret = i2c_add_numbered_adapter(&i2c_dev->adapter);
 	if (ret) {
 		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to add I2C adapter\n");
-		clk_disable(i2c_dev->i2c_clk);
+		clk_disable_unprepare(i2c_dev->i2c_clk);
 		return ret;
 	}

--

-- 
1.7.1.1

Stephen Warren | 20 Jun 2012 18:26

Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.

Wolfram,

Since I've taken the other I2C patch on this topic through the Tegra
tree (in order to satisfy any common clock dependencies there), I
believe I should take this one patch through the Tegra tree too.

I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the
I2C tree though.

Do you agree?

Stephen Warren | 20 Jun 2012 18:27

Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.
...
> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the
> I2C tree though.

Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately not as
a series.

Laxman Dewangan | 25 Jun 2012 11:46

Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

Stephen,

On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
>>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
>>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.
> ...
>> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the
>> I2C tree though.
> Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately not as
> a series.

so are you taking care of this patch or do I need to send the patch 
based on your tree in place of linux-next?

Stephen Warren | 25 Jun 2012 17:55

Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

On 06/25/2012 03:46 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> Stephen,
> 
> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
>>>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
>>>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.
>> ...
>>> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the
>>> I2C tree though.
>> Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately not as
>> a series.
> 
> so are you taking care of this patch or do I need to send the patch
> based on your tree in place of linux-next?

Yes, this patch should be applied through the Tegra tree, since it will
be a dependency of the common clock framework switchover there, which I
hope to take place this kernel cycle.

I did just attempt to apply this patch to the for-3.6/common-clk branch,
but it doesn't apply Could you please rebase and resend. Thanks.

Laxman Dewangan | 26 Jun 2012 08:27

Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

On Monday 25 June 2012 09:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/25/2012 03:46 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
>>>>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
>>>>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.
>>> ...
>>>> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the
>>>> I2C tree though.
>>> Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately not as
>>> a series.
>> so are you taking care of this patch or do I need to send the patch
>> based on your tree in place of linux-next?
> Yes, this patch should be applied through the Tegra tree, since it will
> be a dependency of the common clock framework switchover there, which I
> hope to take place this kernel cycle.
>
> I did just attempt to apply this patch to the for-3.6/common-clk branch,
> but it doesn't apply Could you please rebase and resend. Thanks.

Looked at your common_clk branch and the related code is not there.
The clk_disable() in the particular case is introduced by change
i2c: tegra: make all resource allocation through devm_*
which is not in your branch.

Then later Prashant post the change as

(Continue reading)

Stephen Warren | 26 Jun 2012 18:28

Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

On 06/26/2012 12:27 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
> On Monday 25 June 2012 09:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 06/25/2012 03:46 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>> Stephen,
>>>
>>> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>>>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
>>>>>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
>>>>>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.
>>>> ...
>>>>> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the
>>>>> I2C tree though.
>>>> Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately
>>>> not as
>>>> a series.
>>> so are you taking care of this patch or do I need to send the patch
>>> based on your tree in place of linux-next?
>> Yes, this patch should be applied through the Tegra tree, since it will
>> be a dependency of the common clock framework switchover there, which I
>> hope to take place this kernel cycle.
>>
>> I did just attempt to apply this patch to the for-3.6/common-clk branch,
>> but it doesn't apply Could you please rebase and resend. Thanks.
> 
> Looked at your common_clk branch and the related code is not there.
> The clk_disable() in the particular case is introduced by change
> i2c: tegra: make all resource allocation through devm_*
> which is not in your branch.

(Continue reading)

Laxman Dewangan | 27 Jun 2012 17:59

Re: [PATCH] i2c: tegra: use clk_disable_unprepare in place of clk_disable

On Tuesday 26 June 2012 09:58 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
> On 06/26/2012 12:27 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>> On Monday 25 June 2012 09:25 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> On 06/25/2012 03:46 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>> Stephen,
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 20 June 2012 09:57 PM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> On 06/20/2012 10:26 AM, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>>> On 06/20/2012 06:56 AM, Laxman Dewangan wrote:
>>>>>>> Use clk_disable_unprepare() inplace of clk_disable().
>>>>>>> This was missed as part of moving clock enable/disable to
>>>>>>> prepare/unprepare for using the common clock framework.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> I see no reason not to take the second patch in the series through the
>>>>>> I2C tree though.
>>>>> Uggh. Ignore that paragraph - the other patch was sent separately
>>>>> not as
>>>>> a series.
>>>> so are you taking care of this patch or do I need to send the patch
>>>> based on your tree in place of linux-next?
>>> Yes, this patch should be applied through the Tegra tree, since it will
>>> be a dependency of the common clock framework switchover there, which I
>>> hope to take place this kernel cycle.
>>>
>>> I did just attempt to apply this patch to the for-3.6/common-clk branch,
>>> but it doesn't apply Could you please rebase and resend. Thanks.
>> Looked at your common_clk branch and the related code is not there.
>> The clk_disable() in the particular case is introduced by change
>> i2c: tegra: make all resource allocation through devm_*
>> which is not in your branch.

(Continue reading)

Return

Return to gmane.linux.drivers.i2c.

Project Web Page

This list is for users and developers of the i2c subsystem and i2c bus drivers in Linux 2.4 and 2.6.

Search Archive

Language

Change language

Options

Current view: Threads only / Showing only 20 lines / Not hiding cited text.
Change to All messages, whole messages, or hide cited text.

Post a message
NNTP Newsgroup
Classic Gmane web interface
XML

XML

RSS Feed
List Information

About Gmane