From: linux@prisktech.co.nz (Tony Prisk)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] PWM: vt8500: Update vt8500 PWM driver support
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:36:22 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1350891382.3592.22.camel@gitbox> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121022072448.GB30026@avionic-0098.mockup.avionic-design.de>
On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 09:24 +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 08:09:07PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:51 +1300, Tony Prisk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > chip = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*chip), GFP_KERNEL);
> > > > > if (chip == NULL) {
> > > > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to allocate memory\n");
> > > > > @@ -123,26 +144,32 @@ static int __devinit pwm_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > > > chip->chip.ops = &vt8500_pwm_ops;
> > > > > chip->chip.base = -1;
> > > > > chip->chip.npwm = VT8500_NR_PWMS;
> > > > > + chip->clk = of_clk_get(np, 0);
> > > >
> > > > I thought this was supposed to work transparently across OF and !OF
> > > > configurations by using just clk_get() or devm_clk_get()? I guess that
> > > > if the driver depends on OF, then this would be moot, but we should
> > > > probably stick to the standard usage anyway.
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore, of_clk_get() doesn't seem to be managed, so you'd need to
> > > > add explicit clk_put() in the error cleanup paths. One more argument in
> > > > favour of using devm_clk_get() instead.
> > >
> > > Hmm good point. I stuck with of_ functions because its an OF only driver
> > > and it seemed 'backward' to mix old code with new. It does pose the
> > > question of 'why have of_clk_get() if existing functions work better'.
> >
> > Was about to fix this but noticed why it wasn't like this to start
> > with :)
> >
> > struct clk *devm_clk_get(struct device *dev, const char *id);
> > struct clk *of_clk_get(struct device_node *np, int index);
> >
> > devm_clk_get requires me to 'get' the clock by name. arch-vt8500 (and I
> > believe a lot of other arch's) don't enforce names for clocks defined in
> > devicetree, therefore there is no way for me to know what name the clk
> > has unless I include in the binding that the clock must be named 'xxx'.
>
> I thought clk_get() was supposed to return the first clock specified in
> DT if you pass NULL as the consumer name. I haven't tested this though.
> And I haven't looked at the code.
>
> > of_clk_get retrieves it by the dt-node + index, so it doesn't care as
> > long as its the 1st clock listed.
>
> So the usual way to do this, I believe, is:
>
> clocks = <&clk_foo>;
> clock-names = "foo";
>
> Then use:
>
> clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "foo");
>
> And as I said above, I was under the impression that the default would
> be to use the first clock if NULL was specified instead of "foo".
>
> Thierry
clock-names is an optional property (as defined in
bindings/clock/clock-bindings.txt) so relying on it is .. well,
unreliable.
What you say makes sense, but it means the binding document has to make
an optional property into a required property simply to use an 'old'
function when a new function would 'work' (granted not as well, as you
pointed out) without requiring the optional property.
Your subsystem - your rules. Let me know if I've managed to sway you or
not :)
Regards
Tony P
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-22 7:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-19 10:38 [PATCH 1/3] ARM: dts: Update board files for pwm support Tony Prisk
2012-10-19 10:38 ` [PATCH 2/3] PWM: vt8500: Update vt8500 PWM driver support Tony Prisk
2012-10-22 6:34 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 6:51 ` Tony Prisk
2012-10-22 7:09 ` Tony Prisk
2012-10-22 7:24 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 7:36 ` Tony Prisk [this message]
2012-10-22 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 8:13 ` [PATCH v2] pwm: " Tony Prisk
2012-10-22 8:40 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 18:10 ` [PATCH v3] " Tony Prisk
2012-10-23 22:14 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-24 3:46 ` Tony Prisk
2012-10-24 5:41 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-24 17:35 ` Tony Prisk
2012-10-24 3:48 ` Tony Prisk
2012-10-23 8:41 ` [PATCH 2/3] PWM: " Tony Prisk
2012-10-23 9:22 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-23 9:31 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-10-23 9:56 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 7:11 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 11:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-10-22 12:07 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 13:52 ` Arnd Bergmann
2012-10-22 15:08 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 17:49 ` Tony Prisk
2012-10-19 10:38 ` [PATCH 3/3] DOC: PWM: Adding binding document for via,vt8500-pwm Tony Prisk
2012-10-22 6:35 ` Thierry Reding
2012-10-22 6:53 ` Tony Prisk
2012-10-19 22:37 ` [PATCH 1/3] ARM: dts: Update board files for pwm support Tony Prisk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1350891382.3592.22.camel@gitbox \
--to=linux@prisktech.co.nz \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).