On 12/13/2016 04:02 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
No strong feelings either, it just seems easier and safer to move the
check down in the function and make it return success rather than
potentially affecting the error path within the caller of
emac_clks_phase{1,2}_init here.
I suppose that makes
On 12/13/2016 01:54 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On 12/13/2016 03:46 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
>> Is there a reason why the check is not moved down inwo
>> emac_clks_phase{1,2}_init functions? Do you anticipate other
>> ACPI-related changes in the future that would warrant having this check
>> moved a
On 12/13/2016 03:46 PM, Florian Fainelli wrote:
Is there a reason why the check is not moved down inwo
emac_clks_phase{1,2}_init functions? Do you anticipate other
ACPI-related changes in the future that would warrant having this check
moved at a higher level?
No, this is the last ACPI-related
On 12/13/2016 11:55 AM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> On ACPI systems, clocks are not available to drivers directly. They are
> handled exclusively by ACPI and/or firmware, so there is no clock driver.
> Calls to clk_get() always fail, so we should not even attempt to claim
> any clocks on ACPI systems.
>
On ACPI systems, clocks are not available to drivers directly. They are
handled exclusively by ACPI and/or firmware, so there is no clock driver.
Calls to clk_get() always fail, so we should not even attempt to claim
any clocks on ACPI systems.
Signed-off-by: Timur Tabi
---
drivers/net/ethernet
