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 :)

I wasn't really happy about your allwinner,sunxi compatible, so I just
gave you an easier way out ;)

> > +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.

> 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

-- 
Maxime Ripard, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com