Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] clk: at91: sama7d65: Add missing clk_hw to parent_data

[Ryan Wanner <ryan.wanner@microchip.com>]

On 4/26/25 06:35, Claudiu Beznea wrote:
> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe
> 
> Hi, Ryan,
> 
> On 25.03.2025 17:55, Ryan.Wanner@microchip.com wrote:
>> From: Ryan Wanner <Ryan.Wanner@microchip.com>
>>
>> The main_xtal clk_hw struct is not passed into parent_data.hw causing an
>> issue with main_osc parent.
> 
> Can you please describe the issue?
> 
>> Passing the main_xtal struct into the
>> parent_data struct will ensure the correct parent structure.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Wanner <Ryan.Wanner@microchip.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c | 1 +
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c b/drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c
>> index a5d40df8b2f2..08306261c9c7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/sama7d65.c
>> @@ -1138,6 +1138,7 @@ static void __init sama7d65_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np)
>>
>>       parent_data.name = main_xtal_name;
>>       parent_data.fw_name = main_xtal_name;
>> +     parent_data.hw = main_xtal_hw;
> 
> I think, from time to time, you can still hit some random failure as the
> parent_data.index is still not initialized. I think the problem may be
> solved by doing something like:
> 
> -       static struct clk_parent_data parent_data;
> +       static struct clk_parent_data parent_data = {0};
> 
> Can you please check with this?
Yes I will check on this and test it.

Best,
Ryan
> 
> Thank you,
> Claudiu
> 
> 
>>       main_osc_hw = at91_clk_register_main_osc(regmap, "main_osc", NULL,
>>                                                &parent_data, bypass);
>>       if (IS_ERR(main_osc_hw))
>