Quoting Jeffrey Hugo (2019-02-15 11:29:26)
> On 2/15/2019 11:47 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Jeffrey Hugo (2019-02-11 08:09:00)
> >> On 1/28/2019 11:10 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>
> >>> +static int clk_init_parent(struct clk_core *core)
> >>> +{
> >>> + core->parent = __clk_init_parent(core, true);
> >>> + if (IS_ERR(core->parent))
> >>> + return PTR_ERR(core->parent);
> >>> +
> >>> + /*
> >>> + * Populate core->parent if parent has already been
> >>> clk_core_init'd. If
> >>> + * parent has not yet been clk_core_init'd then place clk in the
> >>> orphan
> >>> + * list. If clk doesn't have any parents then place it in the root
> >>> + * clk list.
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Every time a new clk is clk_init'd then we walk the list of
> >>> orphan
> >>> + * clocks and re-parent any that are children of the clock currently
> >>> + * being clk_init'd.
> >>> + */
> >>> + if (core->parent) {
> >>> + hlist_add_head(&core->child_node,
> >>> + &core->parent->children);
> >>> + core->orphan = core->parent->orphan;
> >>> + } else if (!core->num_parents) {
> >>> + hlist_add_head(&core->child_node, &clk_root_list);
> >>> + core->orphan = false;
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + hlist_add_head(&core->child_node, &clk_orphan_list);
> >>
> >> Missing "core->orphan = true;"?
> >> The snippet below had that line. Its not clear why it appears to be
> >> dropped here.
> >>
> >
> > Hmm. Weird. I think I may have been getting ahead of myself and moving
> > the orphan updating code into __clk_init_parent(). I can't remember why
> > though, so I guess I'll go all the way and move it all into
> > __clk_init_parent() now. Thanks for pointing it out.
> >
>
> No problem.
>
> Just FYI, I've rebased the 8998 mmcc series on top of this, and as far
> as I can tell, everything seems to be working great.
>
Cool. Are you using the new way to specify parents or have you
maintained the previous design of using string names for parents?
