Re: [PATCH] clk: clean-up simple provider misuse of the consumer API

[Brian Masney <bmasney@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 03:20:59PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
> Clock provider should not be using the consumer interface.
> In other words, a provider should not be dealing with struct clk.
> 
> This change targets occurrences for which the provider uses the
> consumer interface and corresponding clk_hw interface exist:
> * __clk_get_name() -> clk_hw_get_name()
> * __clk_is_enabled() -> clk_hw_is_enabled()
> * clk_get_rate() -> clk_hw_get_rate()
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>
> ---
> The change being very simple, I did not think it was necessary
> to split it into multiple changes. If you prefer it to be split,
> just let me know how.
> ---
>  drivers/clk/mvebu/clk-cpu.c            |  2 +-
>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-hfpll.c           |  4 ++--
>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-krait.c           |  2 +-
>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg.c             |  4 ++--
>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg2.c            |  2 +-
>  drivers/clk/renesas/r9a06g032-clocks.c |  2 +-
>  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-pll.c         | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>  drivers/clk/st/clkgen-pll.c            | 20 ++++++++++----------
>  drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c       |  2 +-
>  drivers/clk/ti/clockdomain.c           |  2 +-
>  10 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

This looks good to me however can you split this up by clk subsystem at
the very least so that the various submaintainers can pick up these up?

With that:

Reviewed-by: Brian Masney <bmasney@redhat.com>