From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andre.przywara@arm.com (Andre Przywara) Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 17:04:02 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/5] clk: sunxi: convert current clocks registration to CLK_OF_DECLARE In-Reply-To: <20160202170037.GZ4652@lukather> 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> <20160202170037.GZ4652@lukather> Message-ID: <56B0E182.9000207@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, On 02/02/16 17:00, Maxime Ripard wrote: > 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 :) Great! > I wasn't really happy about your allwinner,sunxi compatible, Me neither, honestly, but I didn't dare to touch clk-sunxi.c even more ;-) > so I just > gave you an easier way out ;) Appreciated! > >>> +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. I am sure you left it in to see if somebody actually checks it ;-) Merci! Andre >> 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 >