From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: andre.przywara@arm.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Andr=c3=a9_Przywara?=) Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 20:58:05 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] clk: sunxi: allow PLL6 clock to be reused In-Reply-To: <20160225181105.GE4736@lukather> References: <1456105198-25295-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@arm.com> <56CAD72D.7050102@arm.com> <20160225181105.GE4736@lukather> Message-ID: <56CF6ADD.1000803@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 25/02/16 18:11, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 09:38:53AM +0000, Andre Przywara wrote: >>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h >>>> index 1e63c5b..3a7da86 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h >>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-factors.h >>>> @@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ struct factors_data { >>>> void (*getter)(struct factors_request *req); >>>> void (*recalc)(struct factors_request *req); >>>> const char *name; >>>> + int name_idx; >>> >>> I would drop the .name field. It was a bad workaround >>> due to limitations of the factors clk code at the time >>> by me. We really shouldn't hard-code the name if we want >>> to reuse the driver. >> >> I know what you mean (my first thought, too) and I totally agree, but we >> need it still for PLL5, which does not carry the original name in the DT >> output names. >> So at least this workaround here does not work, I guess we have to come >> up with something different - which would be a different patch. >> I can take a look into this later. > > Actually, it could be easily worked around. Always take the first > clock output name, take whatever is before '_', and you can remove the > name field entirely. Yeah, I was thinking about that, too, but wanted to give an easy patch a try first. > Jens did something along these lines here: > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2015-October/379900.html Indeed, I stumbled upon this by accident today. Looks great on the first glance: using .self first, then the stub till the underscore. I can review and test this, if needed. > Maybe we should simply rebase this patch, and remove the part that > falls back on the name field. I am totally fine with this! Thanks! Andre.