From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 18:53:54 -0700 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0 In-Reply-To: <53ACB568.4000903@codeaurora.org> References: <53AB1CC1.4010907@codeaurora.org> <53ACB568.4000903@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20140627015354.32686.83046@quantum> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Quoting Stephen Boyd (2014-06-26 17:06:00) > Finally, checking for equivalent pointers from clk_get() will work now, Please don't do that. Even though it works for the current implementation, comparing those pointers from a driver violates how clkdev is supposed to work. The pointer returned by clk_get should only be dereferenced by a driver to check if it is an error code. Anything besides an error code is no business of the driver. > but it isn't future-proof if/when the clock framework starts returning > dynamically allocated clock pointers for each clk_get() invocation. > Maybe we need a function in the common clock framework that tells us if > the clocks are the same either via DT or by taking two clock pointers? I looked through the patch briefly and did not see why we would need to do this. Any hint? Thanks, Mike > > -- > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, > hosted by The Linux Foundation >