Re: [PATCH 2/6] clk: tegra: make tegra_clocks_apply_init_table arch_initcall

Stephen Warren
2014-07-21T21:43:08Z

On 07/16/2014 02:27 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 09:19:33AM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
>> * PGP Signed by an unknown key
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 06:24:32PM +0300, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
>> [...]
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c
>>> index d081732..65cde4e 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk.c
>>> @@ -290,10 +290,13 @@ struct clk ** __init tegra_lookup_dt_id(int clk_id,
>>>
>>> tegra_clk_apply_init_table_func tegra_clk_apply_init_table;
>>>
>>> -void __init tegra_clocks_apply_init_table(void)
>>> +static int __init tegra_clocks_apply_init_table(void)
>>> {
>>> if (!tegra_clk_apply_init_table)
>>> - return;
>>> + return 0;
>>
>> Shouldn't this be an error? Or perhaps WARN()? To make sure this gets
>
> An arch_initcall will be called for every ARM platform I think? In case
> this gets called on a non-Tegra platform, tegra_clk_apply_init_table will not
> be set and therefore a silent return 0; seems the most appropriate thing to do
> to me?

This is one reason that doing all the initialization from separate
initcalls sucks. Much better to have a single top-level initialization
function that calls exactly what is needed, only what is needed, and
only runs on the correct SoCs.

But failing that, I guess you need to say something like
of_is_compatible(root node, "nvidia Tegra"), but of course the
definition of "nvidia Tegra" is an ever-growing list of possible values
that needs to be used from each separate initcall...