From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: s.hauer@pengutronix.de (s.hauer at pengutronix.de) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 22:56:55 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] CLKDEV: Add helper routines to allocate and add clkdevs for given struct clk * In-Reply-To: References: <20120416102503.GA32687@glitch> <4F8BF4DD.2080501@st.com> <20120416103822.GU24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20120416205655.GJ20478@pengutronix.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 07:09:32PM +0530, viresh kumar wrote: > On 4/16/12, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > Checking for NULL clk (or IS_ERR(clk)) and returning -ENOMEM does make > > sense as I mentioned in my original proposal (it allows you to pass the > > returned value from clk_register() directly to this function without > > further checking, and you get the right error code. > > V2: > > From: Russell King > CLKDEV: Add helper routines to allocate and add clkdevs for given struct clk * > > With common clock framework, clks are allocated at runtime. Some of them require > clkdevs to be allocated and added in global clkdev list. > > This patch introduces helper routines to: > > - allocate and add single clkdev for a single clk structure. > - add multiple clkdevs for a single clk structure. > > + > +int clk_register_single_clkdev(struct clk *clk, const char *con_id, > + const char *dev_fmt, ...) Can we drop the 'single' in the name? Otherwise it's quite a long function name. I think name clk_register_clkdev makes it clear already that we only register a single clkdev. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |