From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd) Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:06:59 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v3 3/3] clk: mvebu: migrate CP110 system controller to clk_hw API and registration In-Reply-To: References: <1474448759-24482-1-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com> <1474448759-24482-4-git-send-email-mw@semihalf.com> <20160923214730.GF21232@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20160923220659.GL21232@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 09/24, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > 2016-09-23 23:47 GMT+02:00 Stephen Boyd : > > On 09/21, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > >> @@ -203,80 +202,75 @@ static int cp110_syscon_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >> if (ret) > >> return ret; > >> > >> - cp110_clks = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct clk *), > >> - CP110_CLK_NUM, GFP_KERNEL); > >> - if (!cp110_clks) > >> - return -ENOMEM; > >> - > >> - cp110_clk_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, > >> - sizeof(*cp110_clk_data), > >> + cp110_clk_data = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*cp110_clk_data), > >> + sizeof(struct clk_hw *) * CP110_CLK_NUM, > >> GFP_KERNEL); > > > > This doesn't look right. Why are calloc()ing clk_hw_onecell_data this > > way? > > After some time, at a first sight it seems I should've used following: > cp110_clk_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*cp110_clk_data) + > sizeof(struct > clk_hw *) * CP110_CLK_NUM, > GFP_KERNEL); > > I'll re-check, but is that what you meant? Yes that looks better. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project