From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rob Herring Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] clk: add DT clock binding support Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:32:53 -0500 Message-ID: <4FDABAF5.3090201@gmail.com> References: <1339512111-11172-1-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <1339512111-11172-2-git-send-email-robherring2@gmail.com> <20120615031747.GG31565@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120615031747.GG31565@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Shawn Guo Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org, Grant Likely , mturquette@linaro.org, sboyd@codeaurora.org, skannan@codeaurora.org, s.hauer@pengutronix.de, Sascha Hauer , Mike Turquette List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 06/14/2012 10:17 PM, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: >> +struct clk *of_clk_get_from_provider(struct of_phandle_args *clkspec) >> +{ >> + struct of_clk_provider *provider; >> + struct clk *clk = NULL; > > Both clk and clkdev treat NULL as a valid clock and return ERR_PTR for > error case, while all the codes in this patch just return NULL for > error and check (clk != NULL) for valid clock. Because Grant hates ERR_PTR... :) > > Should we force the consistent behavior between DT and non-DT on this? Yes, I agree and will change it. Rob > >> + >> + /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */ >> + mutex_lock(&of_clk_lock); >> + list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_clk_providers, link) { >> + if (provider->node == clkspec->np) >> + clk = provider->get(clkspec, provider->data); >> + if (clk) >> + break; >> + } >> + mutex_unlock(&of_clk_lock); >> + >> + return clk; >> +} >