From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com (Maxime Ripard) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 18:00:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/5] clk: sunxi: convert current clocks registration to CLK_OF_DECLARE In-Reply-To: <56B0BA56.10500@arm.com> References: <1454402834-6385-1-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <1454402834-6385-4-git-send-email-maxime.ripard@free-electrons.com> <56B0BA56.10500@arm.com> Message-ID: <20160202170037.GZ4652@lukather> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 02:16:54PM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On 02/02/16 08:47, Maxime Ripard wrote: > > The current clock registration and protection code has a few drawbacks, the > > two main ones being that we create a lot of orphans clock in the > > registration phase, which will be troublesome when we will start being less > > relaxed about them. > > > > The protection code also relies on clkdev, which we don't really use but > > for this particular case. > > > > Fix both at the same time by moving everyone to the CLK_OF_DECLARE that > > will probe our clock tree in the right and thus avoid orphans, and by > > protecting directly the clock returned by our registration function. > > I very much appreciate this cleanup and like the idea. Any chance we can > have this rather quickly, so that I can rebase the A64 support series on it? I actually count on that :) I wasn't really happy about your allwinner,sunxi compatible, so I just gave you an easier way out ;) > > +static void __init sun8i_ahb2_clk_setup(struct device_node *node) > > +{ > > + sunxi_mux_clk_setup(node, &sun8i_h3_ahb2_mux_data); > > +} > > +CLK_OF_DECLARE(sun8i_ahb2, "allwinner,sun8i-a31-ahb2-clk", > > + sun8i_ahb2_clk_setup); > > I don't find this clock in my tree (which is mripard/sunxi/for-next). > Instead I only have "allwinner,sun8i-h3-ahb2-clk", as mentioned below. > But as you remove this clock below from the old code and instead > instantiate this new clock here, this looks somehow wrong to me. Can you > confirm this or am I utterly confused? Damn, you're right, it's just a silly copy-paste issue, I'll fix it. > Apart from that I checked each and every clock mentioned in this patch > and can confirm that the transformation is correct. So if you fix this, > I can send a Reviewed-by. Thanks, Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: