Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: fix at91sam9x5 peripheral clock number

[<Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com>]

On 20/02/2019 at 11:29, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 20/02/2019 10:20:28+0000, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
>> On 19/02/2019 at 17:51, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
>>> nck() looks at the last id in an array and unfortunately,
>>> at91sam9x35_periphck has a sentinel, hence the id is 0 and the calculated
>>
>> Well, the logic for all other SoC clk files is to not have such a
>> sentinel and deal differently with this type of array: why not modify
>> this file to match with others?
>>
>>
>>> number of peripheral clocks is 1 instead of a maximum of 31.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 1eabdc2f9dd8 ("clk: at91: add at91sam9x5 PMCs driver")
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>
>>> ---
>>>    drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c | 3 +--
>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
>>> index 2fe225a697df..d37e7ed9eb90 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
>>> @@ -144,8 +144,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9x5_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np,
>>>    		return;
>>>    
>>>    	at91sam9x5_pmc = pmc_data_allocate(PMC_MAIN + 1,
>>> -					   nck(at91sam9x5_systemck),
>>> -					   nck(at91sam9x35_periphck), 0);
>>> +					   nck(at91sam9x5_systemck), 31, 0);
>>
>> I would prefer like it's done on other SoC clk files.
>>
> 
> Well, that is not possible, what do you suggest?

Okay: seen: let's keep it like this.

> 
>>>    	if (!at91sam9x5_pmc)
>>>    		return;
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Nicolas Ferre
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre