From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomeu Vizoso Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 2/4] clk: Make clk API return per-user struct clk instances Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 11:24:41 +0100 Message-ID: <54C22169.2000600@collabora.com> References: <1421847039-29544-1-git-send-email-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> <1421847039-29544-3-git-send-email-tomeu.vizoso@collabora.com> <20150122010136.GH27202@codeaurora.org> <54C0DBD6.2000502@collabora.com> <20150122185923.GL27202@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150122185923.GL27202@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Mike Turquette , Javier Martinez Canillas , Paul Walmsley , Tony Lindgren , Russell King , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On 01/22/2015 07:59 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 01/22, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On 01/22/2015 02:01 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> BTW, please try and fixup checkpatch warnings. >> >> What were you thinking of specifically? I'm running it with >> --max-line-length=106 and the other warnings are in clk-test.c that I >> still have to polish when I get some time. > > I can see that sometimes we exceed the 80 character limits that > are configured by default. We mostly stick to 80 in this file it > seems so I'm not sure why 106 is being used. Well, if I run checkpatch.pl with the default, I get the 80 char limit which I think worsens readability. I use 106 as an arbitrary placeholder for "a bit more than 80", taken from https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/17/229 . I'm reformatting to 80 columns. >>> >>> And we do it here where we could remove the #ifdef. >> >> Yeah, I tried to reduce the ifdefing back then and this is the simplest >> I could come up with. The reason for clk_get() to call >> __clk_create_clk() directly is that it has more relevant information >> with which to tag the per-user clk. >> >> of_clk_get_by_name() has the name of the node but not the dev_id, which >> in my testing looked as much less useful when debugging who did what to >> a clock. >> > > Agreed. But didn't we add __of_clk_get_by_name() so that we could > pass the dev_id and con_id to it? If we did that then all the > relevant information is there and we can call __clk_create_clk() > directly instead of relying on the caller to do it. Ah, that sounds much better indeed. Will be sending v13 shortly. Thanks, Tomeu