Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: x86: Support RV architecture | From | "Agrawal, Akshu" <> | Date | Mon, 20 Jul 2020 10:29:36 +0530 |
| |
On 7/16/2020 6:33 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Akshu Agrawal (2020-07-12 17:59:52) >> There is minor difference between previous family of SoC and >> the current one. Which is the there is only 48Mh fixed clk. >> There is no mux and no option to select another freq as there in previous. >> >> Signed-off-by: Akshu Agrawal <akshu.agrawal@amd.com> >> --- > I only see four out of five patches and there isn't a cover letter. I > have no idea if I can apply this change or if you're expecting me to ack > it. Please help make my life a little easier!
Numbering went wrong due to another unrelated patch.
Will send another with cover letter explaining the series.
>> drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- >> 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c b/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c >> index b252f0cf0628..a8aac71a3b65 100644 >> --- a/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c >> +++ b/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c >> @@ -61,9 +78,17 @@ static int fch_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >> static int fch_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev) >> { >> int i; >> + struct fch_clk_data *fch_data; >> + >> + fch_data = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev); >> >> - for (i = 0; i < ST_MAX_CLKS; i++) >> - clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]); >> + if (!fch_data->is_rv) { >> + for (i = 0; i < ST_MAX_CLKS; i++) >> + clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]); >> + } else { >> + for (i = 0; i < RV_MAX_CLKS; i++) >> + clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]); > Can ST_MAX_CLKS or RV_MAX_CLKS be a local variable and then the loop > consolidated.
Yes, making the change in next series.
Thanks,
Akshu
| |