From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F94CC00140 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 13:25:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238278AbiHXNZt (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:25:49 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50678 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238275AbiHXNZf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Aug 2022 09:25:35 -0400 Received: from smtp.smtpout.orange.fr (smtp09.smtpout.orange.fr [80.12.242.131]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3102953022 for ; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 06:25:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.18] ([90.11.190.129]) by smtp.orange.fr with ESMTPA id QqNuo0vdXtUbyQqNuoT03y; Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:25:32 +0200 X-ME-Helo: [192.168.1.18] X-ME-Auth: Y2hyaXN0b3BoZS5qYWlsbGV0QHdhbmFkb28uZnI= X-ME-Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:25:32 +0200 X-ME-IP: 90.11.190.129 Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2022 15:25:30 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: mpfs: Use devm_clk_get_enabled() helper Content-Language: en-US To: Alexandre Belloni Cc: Conor.Dooley@microchip.com, Daire.McNamara@microchip.com, a.zummo@towertech.it, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-rtc@vger.kernel.org References: From: Christophe JAILLET In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Le 24/08/2022 à 14:28, Alexandre Belloni a écrit : > > BTW, I thought you actually tested your changes on the other patch I > took, not that you were doing a blanket conversion of the subsystem. > This is the kind of info that must appear in the commit log. I would > definitively not have taken the patch. > Ok, noted for future contribution. In fact I first sent only one patch to see if it got some interest for such transformation. I only sent some other after your Ack. Nothing is never trivial, but such patches looks fine to me. It saves some LoC, reduce the size of the .o and slightly saves some runtime memory. And unless, I missed something, the order of operation remains the same, both when resources are allocated and freed. Why wouldn't you have taken such a patch? (just for my understanding and in order to avoid spamming others with useless/risky stuff) CJ