Subject: [PATCH] clk: provide public clk_is_enabled function

From: [email-masked] (Sebastian Hesselbarth)
Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2013 10:39:21 +0200

On 10/06/2013 11:04 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 3:24 PM, Sebastian Hesselbarth
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
>> Of course, we can do clk_enable, read, clk_disable as said before - and
>> given the amount of questions and misinterpretation, I think it is the
>> saner way.
>
> Sorry for any misinterpretation on my end. I agree reading the
> register(s) within a clk_enable/clk_disable-protected section is the
> most sane option.

Well, as you are not the only one misinterpreting the purpose, I
guess it is more about the clk_is_enabled() function itself. Uwe was
very right, that it will lead to patches using it in a wrong way.

Using the common enable/disable functions does no harm to our workaround
and we will use it.

Thanks for taking the time to raise those questions and surface those
critical interpretations early!

Sebastian