Quoting Eric Anholt (2015-08-12 11:04:05) > Michael Turquette <[email protected]> writes: > > > Hi Eric, > > > > Quoting Eric Anholt (2015-07-20 12:33:01) > >> +void __init rpi_firmware_init_clock_provider(struct device_node *node) > >> +{ > >> + /* We delay construction of our struct clks until get time, > >> + * because we need to be able to return -EPROBE_DEFER if the > >> + * firmware driver isn't up yet. clk core doesn't support > >> + * re-probing on -EPROBE_DEFER, but callers of clk_get can. > >> + */ > >> + of_clk_add_provider(node, rpi_firmware_delayed_get_clk, node); > >> +} > >> + > >> +CLK_OF_DECLARE(rpi_firmware_clocks, "raspberrypi,bcm2835-firmware-clocks", > >> + rpi_firmware_init_clock_provider); > > > > Do you require CLK_OF_DECLARE here? Could this be a platform driver > > instead? > > I'm not actually sure. The common pattern seemed to be using > CLK_OF_DECLARE (130 files using it versus declaring a struct > platform_driver), and it seems to avoid a whole lot of boilerplate. > What would the advantage be?
Correctly using the Linux driver model, having a nice struct device and things like supsend and resume handlers, etc. There is a lot of CLK_OF_DECLARE going on in drivers/clk, but I am hoping we can fix that. The main reason for CLK_OF_DECLARE is when you need to register clocks very early (e.g. timers). This is often not the case. Regards, Mike -- 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/
