From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: sunxi: Remove use of VLAIS To: Stephen Boyd Cc: Maxime Ripard , Chen-Yu Tsai , Michael Turquette , linux-clk References: <20160226194830.GA21652@lukather> <1456878048-23393-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20160303191604.GW24999@codeaurora.org> <20160304152711.GR8418@lukather> <20160304171841.GF24999@codeaurora.org> <20160308221320.GI8418@lukather> <20160315221601.GJ25972@codeaurora.org> <56E91EA4.7030603@free.fr> <20160316203018.GQ25972@codeaurora.org> From: Mason Message-ID: <56E9C5C0.901@free.fr> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:44:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160316203018.GQ25972@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 List-ID: On 16/03/2016 21:30, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 03/16, Mason wrote: >> On 15/03/2016 23:16, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> >>> Applied to clk-next. >> >> For the record, I will state again that I find it quite sub-optimal >> to resort to dynamic allocation for small temporary pointer arrays. >> >> A fortiori when one considers that getting the patch right required >> several attempts. > > Feel free to send the patch and then we can discuss and test. For > the record, I was waiting for Maxime or Chen-Yu to speak up if > they would prefer that approach, but nothing happened. Usually > patches spur discussions better than comments. While I didn't provide a formal patch, I did outline the two lines that needed to be changed (and it is obvious that the behavior is strictly equivalent to the VLA solution, as long as num_parents < 8). I do agree with you that, considering the silence from the driver's maintainers, they probably don't care which solution is adopted. I will remember to post an actual patch next time. Regards.