On 09/04/2014 01:45 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 09/01/14 08:34, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: > >> >> NOTE: with this patch, clk_get_parent() behaves like clk_get(), i.e. it >> needs to be matched with a clk_put(). Otherwise, memory will leak. >> > [...] >> } >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_provider_get_parent); >> + >> +/** >> + * clk_get_parent - return the parent of a clk >> + * @clk_user: the clk whose parent gets returned >> + * >> + * Simply returns clk->parent. Returns NULL if clk is NULL. > > We should at least document here that clk_put() is expected to be called > when it's not being used.
Good point. > I wonder why it's this way though. Why can't > every clk_core have a private clk pointer to it's parent that's created > during registration time? Then we just hand that out for > clk_get_parent() and destroy it when the clk_core is freed? Well, that wouldn't be a per-user clock any more, right? I see though how it would be desirable not to burden the caller with having to free the per-user clk. Thanks, Tomeu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
