Quoting Miquel Raynal (2019-01-04 07:54:06) > Hi Stephen, > > Stephen Boyd <[email protected]> wrote on Tue, 11 Dec 2018 09:12:55 > -0800: > > > Sorry, I'm not reviewing the whole patch right now, just this one little > > bit because I'm also working in the same area. > > > > Quoting Miquel Raynal (2018-12-04 11:24:38) > > > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > > index 60c51871b04b..721d6b55b2fa 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h > > > @@ -781,6 +781,8 @@ void devm_clk_hw_unregister(struct device *dev, > > > struct clk_hw *hw); > > > const char *__clk_get_name(const struct clk *clk); > > > const char *clk_hw_get_name(const struct clk_hw *hw); > > > struct clk_hw *__clk_get_hw(struct clk *clk); > > > +void clk_link_consumer(struct device *consumer, struct clk *clk); > > > +void clk_unlink_consumer(struct clk *clk); > > > > We shouldn't need to add these functions as far as I can tell. That's > > because __clk_get() has become an internal API between clkdev.c and > > clk.c that does nothing now on implementations that aren't the CCF. We > > can even change this API to take a clk_hw pointer instead of a clk > > pointer. > > > > I'd rather see us plumb a struct device and clk_hw structure down into > > __clk_get() and fold it all into __clk_create_clk, possibly even > > renaming __clk_create_clk to clk_hw_create_clk(). That way we can get > > the calling device and clk_hw pointer in one call in the clk framework, > > along with the device name and connection name, and then generate the > > struct clk right there. This can simplify some code and make it easier > > to extend this to associate calling devices with the clk consumer > > somehow. > > > > Here's the diff. With this, you should be able to add and remove device > > links in clk_hw_create_clk() when dev != NULL. > > Thanks for the help; I updated my work on top of yours, it looks ok but > I need to run some more tests. > > However I had to tweak a parameter in one of your recent changes, you > used '-1' as index in __of_clock_get() while it is not a valid value > (returning an error). As in the __of_clk_get_by_name() function you > removed index was just set to 0 at the top of the function, I think the > below fix is valid.
Thanks. Makes sense so I folded it in.
