Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] clk: at91: sckc: improve error path

From: Alexandre Belloni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2019 11:33:02 +0200

On 20/06/2019 10:30:42+0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 18.06.2019 12:55, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 13/06/2019 15:37:06+0000, [email-masked] wrote:
> >> From: Claudiu Beznea <[email-masked]>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> This series tries to improve error path for slow clock registrations
> >> by adding functions to free resources and using them on failures.
> >>
> > 
> > Does the platform even boot when the slow clock is not available? 
> > 
> > The TCB clocksource would fail at:
> > 
> >         tc.slow_clk = of_clk_get_by_name(node->parent, "slow_clk");
> >         if (IS_ERR(tc.slow_clk))
> >                 return PTR_ERR(tc.slow_clk);
> > 
> 
> In case of using TC as clocksource, yes, the platform wouldn't boot if slow
> clock is not available, because, anyway the TC needs it. PIT may work
> without it (if slow clock is not used to drive the PIT).
> 
> For sure there are other IPs (which may be or are driven by slow clock)
> which may not work if slow clock is driven them.
> 
> Anyway, please let me know if you feel this series has no meaning.
> 

Well, I'm not sure it is worth it but at the same time, it is not adding
many lines and you already developed it...

-- 
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel