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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <YvExSVixNUpOivja@sirena.org.uk>
In-Reply-To: <YvExSVixNUpOivja@sirena.org.uk>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Aug 2022 20:23:28 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VfL2kKqP5m1SZfBdd0Z-kLg=rcccAxmQ4LOd88gOuFcww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/5] regmap: mmio: Don't unprepare attached clock
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 8, 2022 at 5:52 PM Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org> wrote:
> 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.

There is no bug with the existing codebase after this commit. Are you
talking about out-of-tree modules? Or maybe there is documentation
that says that regmap clears all additionally attached resources?

Okay I may admit that Fixes tag might be wrong due to potential users
in the past. However, in the current state of affairs either we can
proceed with a patch, or amend documentation (if not yet done) to
clarify this aspect of regmap MMIO. From the above I may assume that
you would rather expect the latter to be done (if not yet).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko