Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Apr 2012 18:34:12 +0100 | From | Mark Brown <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] clkdev: Implement managed clk_get() |
| |
On Mon, Apr 02, 2012 at 06:04:43PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 12:32:40PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Allow clk API users to simplify their cleanup paths by providing a > > managed version of clk_get().
> > Due to the lack of a standard struct clk to look up the device from a > > managed clk_put() is not provided, it would be very unusual to use this > > function so it's not a big loss.
> Err, why? The contents of struct clk has nothing to do with clk_put(). > You're doing something really wrong here.
It does for a devm_clk_put(). Normally this would end up being:
void devm_clk_put(struct clk *clk);
but the devres stuff needs us to have a struct device to get the underlying allocation/mapping and undo it.
> Remember, there is not going to _ever_ be the situation where a struct clk > is specific to any particular struct device - it's a 1:N mapping between > clks and devices.
Right, absolutely - to do it as above struct clk would be allocated per user and indirect to the actual clock implementation (which some people were muttering about for other reasons, though I can't remember what those were off the top of my head). Probably what would actually end up happening is that we'd instead have a signature like:
devm_clk_put(struct device *dev, struct clk *clk);
but I didn't particularly feel like making that decision right now, especially if we do end up going with per user allocations and can use the more idiomatic signature.
> So, until you sort out your misunderstanding, NAK.
I think I understand just fine, thanks.
In any case, we'd only really need a devm_clk_put() if someone wants one which is a bit of a corner case in the first place so just ignoring the issue until that happens should be fine. [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |