Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-104737-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <2688272d2763a36f401a08ca48c0eb24.sboyd@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <104401da76cc$ccc772c0$66565840$@samsung.com>
References: <20240220084046.23786-1-shradha.t@samsung.com> <CGME20240220084120epcas5p1e8980539667c3d9da20f49fc645d8f4c@epcas5p1.samsung.com> <20240220084046.23786-2-shradha.t@samsung.com> <f00eed31-4baf-4d5c-934d-8223d1ab554d@moroto.mountain> <022301da6fbf$aae4f7e0$00aee7a0$@samsung.com> <9927a3356ce54c626ab4733844a4385b.sboyd@kernel.org> <104401da76cc$ccc772c0$66565840$@samsung.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v6 1/2] clk: Provide managed helper to get and enable bulk clocks
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, mturquette@baylibre.com, jingoohan1@gmail.com, lpieralisi@kernel.org, kw@linux.com, robh@kernel.org, bhelgaas@google.com, krzysztof.kozlowski@linaro.org, alim.akhtar@samsung.com, linux@armlinux.org.uk, m.szyprowski@samsung.com, manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org, pankaj.dubey@samsung.com, gost.dev@samsung.com
To: 'Dan Carpenter' <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>, Shradha Todi <shradha.t@samsung.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:39:41 -0700
User-Agent: alot/0.10

Quoting Shradha Todi (2024-03-15 04:34:44)
> >=20
> > Quoting Shradha Todi (2024-03-06 04:13:03)
> > > >
> > > > When clk_bulk_get_all() returns zero then we return success here.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, we are returning success in case there are no clocks as well. In
> > > case there are no clocks defined in the DT-node, then it is assumed
> > > that the driver does not need any clock manipulation for driver
> > > operation. So the intention here is to continue without throwing
> > > error.
> >=20
> > Maybe we shouldn't even return the clks to the caller. Do you have any =
use for
> > the clk pointers?
>=20
> The intention to return the clk pointers was in the case where caller wan=
ts to
> manipulate a particular clock in certain conditions. They can obtain the =
clock pointer
> and use clk_set_parent, clk_set_rate on those particular clocks.
> But I understand that in that case users can use existing clk_bulk_get_al=
l() API.
> So, should I go ahead and send v7?
>=20

No, I think this is fine.