lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateFri, 25 Feb 2011 14:09:57 -0800
FromStepan Moskovchenko <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] msm: iommu: Rework clock logic and add IOMMU bus clock control
On 2/24/2011 11:29 PM, Trilok Soni wrote:
> Hi Steve,

Hello

>> @@ -130,117 +131,134 @@ static int msm_iommu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> {
>> struct resource *r, *r2;
>> struct clk *iommu_clk;
>> + struct clk *iommu_pclk;
>> struct msm_iommu_drvdata *drvdata;
>> struct msm_iommu_dev *iommu_dev = pdev->dev.platform_data;
> const please.
>

I am not clear on what you mean. Please be more specific here.

>> + iommu_pclk = clk_get(NULL, "smmu_pclk");
>> + if (IS_ERR(iommu_pclk)) {
>> + ret = -ENODEV;
>> + goto fail;
>> + }
> I am not a big fan of this when you have the "device" around. You should just do
>
> iommu_pclk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, NULL);
>
> ...error logic...
>
> iommu_clk = clk_get(&pdev->dev, "iommu_clk");
>
> ...error logic...
>

The pclk is a "special" bus clock and does not have a specific device
instance associated with it, so passing a device would not be
appropriate in this case. I pass the device for other clocks that are
indeed associated with devices, but this is not one of them. I suppose
we could create 11 or 12 aliases for the pclk and associate it with all
the IOMMU devices, but I would prefer to avoid doing that as I believe
the current approach is cleaner.

>> - ret = -EBUSY;
>> - goto fail;
>> - }
>> + len = r->end - r->start + 1;
>
> resource_size please.
>

Ok




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-02-25 23:13    [from the cache]
©2003-2010