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

From: Stephen Boyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:53:59 -0700

Quoting Alexandre Belloni (2019-06-21 02:33:02)
> 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...
> 

Is that a Reviewed-by or a Rejected-by tag?

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