Re: [PATCH 0/3] clk: let clock perform allocation in init

[Jerome Brunet]

On Tue 03 Dec 2019 at 10:05, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Quoting Jerome Brunet (2019-11-29 07:36:28)
>> 
>> On Tue 24 Sep 2019 at 14:39, Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>> > This patchset is a follow up on this pinky swear [0].
>> > Its purpose is:
>> >  * Clarify the acceptable use of clk_ops init() callback
>> >  * Let the init() callback return an error code in case anything
>> >    fail.
>> >  * Add the terminate() counter part of of init() to release the
>> >    resources which may have been claimed in init()
>> >
>> > After discussing with Stephen at LPC, I decided to drop the 2 last patches
>> > of the RFC [1]. I can live without it for now and nobody expressed a
>> > critical need to get the proposed placeholder.
>> >
>> > [0]: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/CAEG3pNB-143Pr_xCTPj=tURhpiTiJqi61xfDGDVdU7zG5H-2tA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > [1]: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20190828102012.4493-1-jbrunet@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> 
>> Hi Stephen,
>> 
>> Do you think we can fit this into the incoming cycle ?
>> 
>
> Sorry I missed this one. I'll apply it soon but won't be for this merge
> window.

No worries, I was referring to the v5.6 cycle, not the v5.5 merge
window.