Re: [PATCH] clk: Add clk_parent entry in debugfs

[Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>]

Hi Leonard,

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 9:26 AM Leonard Crestez <leonard.crestez@nxp.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/19 10:05 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Leonard Crestez (2019-05-24 01:25:25)
>
> >> @@ -3040,10 +3051,11 @@ static void clk_debug_create_one(struct clk_core *core, struct dentry *pdentry)
> >>          debugfs_create_u32("clk_enable_count", 0444, root, &core->enable_count);
> >>          debugfs_create_u32("clk_protect_count", 0444, root, &core->protect_count);
> >>          debugfs_create_u32("clk_notifier_count", 0444, root, &core->notifier_count);
> >>          debugfs_create_file("clk_duty_cycle", 0444, root, core,
> >>                              &clk_duty_cycle_fops);
> >> +       debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core, &current_parent_fops);
> >
> > Shouldn't we skip creation of this file if core->num_parents == 0? So
> > put this under the if condition below?
>
> It's still useful to determine clk tree structure from debugfs fields,
> otherwise you'd have to extract by parsing other files.
>
> Would you hide clk_rate for fixed-rate? I'd rather have everything
> available for uniformity, even if it's otherwise constant at runtime.

Unless I' missing something, there's a big difference here: all clocks
have a rate, but not all clocks have a parent.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@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

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel