On Mon, 23 Mar 2015, Charles Keepax wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 01:52:13PM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > > On Tue, 17 Mar 2015, Charles Keepax wrote: > > > > > wm5102 applies a custom hardware boot sequence, for this the SYSCLK > > > needs to be enabled. This patch factors out the code that enables > > > SYSCLK for this sequence such that it can be used for other boot time > > > operations that require SYSCLK. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax <[email protected]> > > > --- > <snip> > > > + > > > +static inline int arizona_apply_hardware_patch(struct arizona *arizona) > > > +{ > > > + return arizona_exec_with_sysclk(arizona, arizona_hardware_patch_wseq); > > > > Not sure I like this much. > > > > What's the reason for over-complicating this? Can you just: > > > > arizona_exec_with_sysclk(arizona); > > arizona_hardware_patch_wseq(arizona); > > > > ... or if you need that call to be in the middle, split the calls up > > further. > > > > Yeah, it was just a handy way to store the state and keep the > amount of code down. But I don't really have any problem with > explicitly storing the state if you prefer that. > > So would probably look something like: > > struct sysclk_state; > int ret; > > ret = arizona_force_sysclk(arizona, &sysclk_state); > if (ret) { > //Handle error > } > ret = arizona_hardware_patch_wseq(arizona); > if (ret) { > //Handle error > } > ret = arizona_restore_sysclk(arizona, &sysclk_state); > if (ret) { > //Handle error > } > > I will assume you want it updated to look like this so let me > know if not.
Looks much cleaner/less hacky. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
