Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Oct 2013 00:38:06 +0100 | From | Sylwester Nawrocki <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 0/5] clk: clock deregistration support |
| |
Hi Laurent,
On 10/28/2013 10:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > On Tuesday 24 September 2013 23:38:44 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >> On 08/30/2013 04:53 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: >>> This patch series implements clock deregistration in the common clock >>> framework. Comparing to v5 it only includes further corrections of NULL >>> clock handling. [...] >> ---------8<------------------ >> From ca5963041aad67e31324cb5d4d5e2cfce1706d4f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Sylwester Nawrocki<s.nawrocki@samsung.com> >> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:52:04 +0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] omap3isp: Pass NULL device pointer to clk_register() >> >> Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki<s.nawrocki@samsung.com> >> --- >> drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c | 15 ++++++++++----- >> drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c >> b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c >> index df3a0ec..d7f3c98 100644 >> --- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c >> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c >> @@ -290,9 +290,11 @@ static int isp_xclk_init(struct isp_device *isp) >> struct clk_init_data init; >> unsigned int i; >> >> + for (i = 0; i< ARRAY_SIZE(isp->xclks); ++i) >> + isp->xclks[i] = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL); > > I don't think you've compile-tested this :-)
Thank you for the comments. Yeah, I messed up this, I thought this part got recompiled but it didn't. I've fixed this in the recently posted patch.
>> + >> for (i = 0; i< ARRAY_SIZE(isp->xclks); ++i) { >> struct isp_xclk *xclk =&isp->xclks[i]; >> - struct clk *clk; >> >> xclk->isp = isp; >> xclk->id = i == 0 ? ISP_XCLK_A : ISP_XCLK_B; >> @@ -306,9 +308,9 @@ static int isp_xclk_init(struct isp_device *isp) >> >> xclk->hw.init =&init; >> >> - clk = devm_clk_register(isp->dev,&xclk->hw); >> - if (IS_ERR(clk)) >> - return PTR_ERR(clk); >> + xclk->clk = clk_register(NULL,&xclk->hw); >> + if (IS_ERR(xclk->clk)) >> + return PTR_ERR(xclk->clk); > > This doesn't introduce any regression in the sense that it will trade a > problem for another one, so I'm fine with it in the short. Could you add a > small comment above the clk_register() call to explain why the first argument > is NULL ?
I'm not entirely happy about doing something like that. Nevertheless I didn't hear so far any better proposals and I guess it could be treated as a short term modification while we're working on proper handling of those circular references.
-- Thanks, Sylwester
| |