> On 10.01.2016, at 12:58, Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:55:48AM +0100, Martin Sperl wrote:
>
>> So if someone with a better idea how to keep those dt-binding includes
>> synchronized with the definitions used by the code step forward and
>> propose a better solution how to get that implemented?
>
>> I guess there will be a few more occurrences of clocks that are
>> currently not defined, which will need to get introduced in the future
>> PWM and PCM were just the last in this series.
>
> Presumably just making the code not rely on having a define for the
> number of clocks would deal with the problem (eg, using ARRAY_SIZE
> internally).
ARRAY_SIZE would work fine, but the code is:
#include <dt-bindings/clock/bcm2835.h>
...
struct bcm2835_cprman {
struct device *dev;
void __iomem *regs;
spinlock_t regs_lock;
const char *osc_name;
struct clk_onecell_data onecell;
struct clk *clks[BCM2835_CLOCK_COUNT];
};
...
static int bcm2835_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
{
...
clks[BCM2835_PLLA_CORE] =
bcm2835_register_pll_divider(cprman, &bcm2835_plla_core_data);
...
clks[BCM2835_CLOCK_PCM] =
bcm2835_register_clock(cprman, &bcm2835_clock_pcm_data);
...
}
So the Array size is defined by the dt-bindings.
What you propose is a major change to the clock framework, so I would
hope that Eric (the original author of this clock-driver) would address
it.
Maybe someone has a better idea for a pattern to use to achieve
the required while maintaining “synchronization” between defines
inside the dt-binding and the driver.
_______________________________________________
Alsa-devel mailing list
Alsa-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mailman.alsa-project.org/mailman/listinfo/alsa-devel
