Subject: [PATCH v5 4/4] clk: basic clock hardware types

From: [email-masked] (Andrew Lunn)
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2012 11:17:08 +0100

> > I think i can wrap your simple gate clock, to make my "complex" gate
> > clock. What would help is if you would EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL
> > clk_gate_enable() and clk_gate_disable(), since they do exactly what i
> > want. I can then build my own clk_ops structure, with my own
> > unprepare() function. I would probably use DEFINE_CLK_GATE as is, and
> > then at run time, before calling __clk_init() overwrite the .ops with
> > my own version.
> 
> Maybe I don't get your point, but clk_unprepare should be used when
> you have to sleep to disable your clock. When clk_gate_disable() is
> exactly why do you want to use clk_unprepare instead of clk_disable?

I'm trying to avoid having to implement a new clock provider. The
whole point of the generic clk code is to consolidate code. It seems
silly to create a new clk provider which is 95% identical to Mike's
gated provider, if i can avoid it.

If i stuff it into clk_disable(), it means i cannot use the basic gate
clock Mike provides in the generic clock framework. Which is a shame,
since it does exactly what i want in terms of gating the clock.

If i can use unprepare(), which basic gate does not use, i can use
Mikes code, and just extend it. It is there, it is unused, so why not
use it?

    Andrew