From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: geert@linux-m68k.org (Geert Uytterhoeven) Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2017 21:57:46 +0200 Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/3] clk: add clk_bulk_get accessories In-Reply-To: <1491931159.31718.16.camel@nxp.com> References: <1491969809-20154-1-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com> <1491969809-20154-2-git-send-email-aisheng.dong@nxp.com> <1491931159.31718.16.camel@nxp.com> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Leonard Crestez wrote: > On Wed, 2017-04-12 at 12:03 +0800, Dong Aisheng wrote: >> +/** >> + * clk_bulk_enable - ungate a bulk of clocks >> + * @num_clks: the number of clk_bulk_data >> + * @clks: the clk_bulk_data table being ungated >> + * >> + * clk_bulk_enable must not sleep >> + * Returns 0 on success, -EERROR otherwise. >> + */ >> +int clk_bulk_enable(int num_clks, struct clk_bulk_data *clks) >> +{ >> + int ret; >> + int i; >> + >> + for (i = 0; i < num_clks; i++) { >> + ret = clk_enable(clks[i].clk); >> + if (ret) { >> + pr_err("Failed to enable clk '%s': %d\n", >> + clks[i].id, ret); >> + goto err; >> + } >> + } >> + >> + return 0; >> + >> +err: >> + while (--i >= 0) >> + clk_put(clks[i].clk); > > Shouldn't this be clk_disable? > > And you can probably use clk_bulk_disable(i, clks) instead To avoid nasty surprises, clk_bulk_disable() should loop over all clocks in reverse order. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert at linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds