Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 16:52:41 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Aidan MacDonald <aidanmacdonald.0x0@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] regmap: mmio: Don't unprepare attached clock
Message-ID: <YvExSVixNUpOivja@sirena.org.uk>
References: <20220805205321.19452-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <YvEKgkhRWCKtXdD4@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAHp75VeeZAgKdZhJffNouFh26rwGzmqGuJX7bcObSVV+dFS-tA@mail.gmail.com>
 <YvEUJ12TmgRaR4Ub@sirena.org.uk>
 <CAHp75Vd_wks4d4HyFQpWWUQO-DPj7bmm6e66LSZ3F0+O6fC6bw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
        protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4f30vEVZ3LwvC9A3"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vd_wks4d4HyFQpWWUQO-DPj7bmm6e66LSZ3F0+O6fC6bw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk


--4f30vEVZ3LwvC9A3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 04:42:28PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:48 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2022 at 03:41:48PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 3:19 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:

> > > > regmap_mmio_attach_clk() prepares the clock that's passed in, we should
> > > > undo that when detaching otherwise we're leaking a prepare (as we do in
> > > > the explicit detach).

> > > Why do we allow the user to avoid explicit detach? What is the point
> > > of having that API in the case we take care of it?

> > I think just for symmetry so it's obvious that error handling is
> > happening if people want it to be.

> So, the only user of that API calls it explicitly. Should I rewrite a
> commit message somehow?

No.  Your commit would just introduce a bug.

--4f30vEVZ3LwvC9A3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEzBAABCgAdFiEEreZoqmdXGLWf4p/qJNaLcl1Uh9AFAmLxMUgACgkQJNaLcl1U
h9DQiwgAg+GOOT9iij73zrFpBk62fvrTLnJU0hZ2ReC/ZC0iOcszC5TeG59PSEI+
CBcMzQCf66DxfBkcSUQwLudkbVIVR/datCpXIaGdTVSwPY+dVk4+IKFuvUTVtavk
MMwzHgxbL27ScVFMaRQDB2Dues0ZcYNm9QPwvZVhIid368SD5jE/GxGJ+8ZYc35n
D0Vwxz/knZ/x8pTDWBDj109BcahI4deKj8m6t0dc3dCqxIyEC/UkrOArCLUlCRcs
yh/rJYoMcvzjd4AKpAziYlmQxx+rzUwjSsmfV4HA5WoV33tOVqcrgcIjSnHtVpDn
/AGEyo2smz2UbMsTRlfqY9k8lqo89g==
=NACF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--4f30vEVZ3LwvC9A3--