From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Philipp Zabel Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH 1/8] clk: add helper function clk_is_match() Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 10:56:58 +0100 Message-ID: <1424944618.3073.6.camel@pengutronix.de> References: <1424876018-17852-1-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <1424876018-17852-2-git-send-email-shawn.guo@linaro.org> <20150225172757.421.43718@quantum> <20150226090256.GQ30445@trinity.fluff.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150226090256.GQ30445@trinity.fluff.org> Sender: linux-pwm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Ben Dooks Cc: Mike Turquette , linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Russell King , kernel@pengutronix.de, Greg Kroah-Hartman , Stephen Boyd , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, Mark Brown , Thierry Reding , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org, Shawn Guo , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Am Donnerstag, den 26.02.2015, 09:02 +0000 schrieb Ben Dooks: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:27:57AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: [...] > > From: Michael Turquette > > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:11:01 -0800 > > Subject: [PATCH] clk: introduce clk_is_match > > > > Some drivers compare struct clk pointers as a means of knowing > > if the two pointers reference the same clock hardware. This behavior is > > dubious (drivers must not dereference struct clk), but did not cause any > > regressions until the per-user struct clk patch was merged. Now the test > > for matching clk's will always fail with per-user struct clk's. > > > > clk_is_match is introduced to fix the regression and prevent drivers > > from comparing the pointers manually. > > small observaton, clk_is_same() is linguistically nicer. How about clk_equal() ? regards Philipp