Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] clk: Introduce devm_clk_hw_register_gate_parent_data()

[Marek Vasut <marex@denx.de>]

On 2/27/23 09:38, Alexander Stein wrote:

[...]

>> +/**
>> + * devm_clk_hw_register_gate - register a gate clock with the clock
>> framework + * @dev: device that is registering this clock
>> + * @name: name of this clock
>> + * @parent_data: parent clk data
>> + * @flags: framework-specific flags for this clock
>> + * @reg: register address to control gating of this clock
>> + * @bit_idx: which bit in the register controls gating of this clock
>> + * @clk_gate_flags: gate-specific flags for this clock
>> + * @lock: shared register lock for this clock
>> + */
>> +#define devm_clk_hw_register_gate_parent_data(dev, name, parent_data,
>> flags,  \ +					      reg,
> bit_idx, clk_gate_flags,   \
>> +					      lock)		
> 	      \
>> +	__devm_clk_hw_register_gate((dev), NULL, (name), NULL, NULL,	      \
>> +				    (parent_data), (flags), (reg),
> (bit_idx), \
>> +				    (clk_gate_flags), (lock))
>> +
>>   void clk_unregister_gate(struct clk *clk);
>>   void clk_hw_unregister_gate(struct clk_hw *hw);
>>   int clk_gate_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw);
> 
> Is it worth to add the parent_data paremeter into existing
> devm_clk_hw_register_gate macro? Just adding this new macro for setting
> parent_data instead of parent_name seems a bit too much. What if someone wants
> to set parent_hw? Add another macro?

Yes, another macro seems to be the accepted practice here.