Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 1 Jul 2014 16:44:04 +0530 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0 | From | Viresh Kumar <> |
| |
On 1 July 2014 00:03, Rob Herring <rob.herring@linaro.org> wrote: >> What about comparing "clocks" property in cpu DT nodes? > > What if a different clock is selected for some reason.
I don't know why that will happen for CPUs sharing clock line.
> I think a clock api function would be better.
@Mike: What do you think? I think we can get a clock API for this.
> That being said, I don't really have any issue with such a function. > Some comments on the implementation.
>> +static int of_property_match(const struct device_node *np1, >> + const struct device_node *np2, >> + const char *list_name) >> +{ >> + const __be32 *list1, *list2, *list1_end; > > s/list/prop/ > > Everywhere.
Ok.
>> + int size1, size2; >> + phandle phandle1, phandle2; >> + >> + /* Retrieve the list property */ >> + list1 = of_get_property(np1, list_name, &size1); >> + if (!list1) >> + return -ENOENT; >> + >> + list2 = of_get_property(np2, list_name, &size2); >> + if (!list2) >> + return -ENOENT; >> + >> + if (size1 != size2) >> + return 0; >> + >> + list1_end = list1 + size1 / sizeof(*list1); >> + >> + /* Loop over the phandles */ >> + while (list1 < list1_end) { >> + phandle1 = be32_to_cpup(list1++); >> + phandle2 = be32_to_cpup(list2++); >> + >> + if (phandle1 != phandle2) >> + return 0; >> + } > > You can just do a memcmp here.
Yeah, that would be much better.
> This is wrong anyway because you don't know #clock-cells size.
I was actually comparing all the clock-cells, whatever there number is to make sure "clocks" properties are exactly same. Anyway memcmp will still guarantee that.
Thanks for your review.
| |