From: b-cousson@ti.com (Cousson, Benoit) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:58:40 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] ARM: OMAP2+: hwmod code: convert missing clockdomain warnings to debug messages In-Reply-To: References: <20120918211146.16484.85893.stgit@dusk.lan> <20120918211251.16484.18401.stgit@dusk.lan> <5058ECAF.7010609@ti.com> Message-ID: <505A4E20.5040903@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Paul, On 9/19/2012 5:48 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi Beno?t, > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2012, Cousson, Benoit wrote: > >> On 9/18/2012 4:12 PM, Paul Walmsley wrote: >>> The decision was made a few months ago to allow struct omap_hwmod >>> records and struct clk records to omit clockdomain information if the >>> clockdomain is not software-controllable. See for example commit >>> 868c157df9721675c19729eed2c96bac6c3f1d01 ("ARM: OMAP2+: hwmod: remove >>> prm_clkdm, cm_clkdm; allow hwmods to have no clockdomain"). >>> >>> So convert an existing pr_warning() to a pr_debug() (regarding missing >>> clockdomains in clocks), and add a pr_debug() for missing hwmod >>> clockdomains. >> >> At some point I sent you a small RFC to still keep the message if neither >> oh->clkdm nor oh->_clk->clkdm was there. I've never had the time to test it, >> but that should then cover OMAP2, 3 & 4 cases. > > OK let's plan to test and add something like that during the 3.8 time > frame... probably it should also depend on the value of clkdm_control. > It's not clear to me exactly what that conditional should look like... OK, I was thinking of a more basic thing. If some more values have to be checked it might be a little bit more tricky. Let's see that later. Thanks, Benoit