On 05/09/2016 10:19 PM, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
> Hello Krzysztof,
>
> On 05/08/2016 03:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> Just like clock driver for Exynos542x/5800, provide the fixed clock here
>> so the clock bindings and their consumers would be consistent and
>> similar.
>>
>> However a clock named "fin_pll" is already provided by generic
>> fixed-clock and it is both referenced in the clock driver (by name) and
>> in DT (by phandle). To make the transition smooth, first introduce the
>> new external fixed clock here under temporary, different name and switch
>> internal users to it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>
> [snip]
>
>>
>> +/* Same as in Exynos5420 */
>> +static const struct of_device_id ext_clk_match[] __initconst = {
>> + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420-oscclk", .data = (void *)0, },
>
> Since using designated initializers, I was about to say that there is no need
> to explicitly set .data to 0 since omitted fields are implicitly initialized...
>
>> + { },
>> +};
>> +
>> /* register exynos5410 clocks */
>> static void __init exynos5410_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
>> {
>> @@ -192,6 +204,10 @@ static void __init exynos5410_clk_init(struct device_node *np)
>>
>> ctx = samsung_clk_init(np, reg_base, CLK_NR_CLKS);
>>
>> + samsung_clk_of_register_fixed_ext(ctx, exynos5x_fixed_rate_ext_clks,
>> + ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5x_fixed_rate_ext_clks),
>> + ext_clk_match);
>> +
>
> ... but then I noticed that .data is used as exynos5x_fixed_rate_ext_clks
> array index in samsung_clk_of_register_fixed_ext(). So makes sense to set
> it explicitly to make the intent clear.
Yes, that is the intention here. The '(void *)0' is a hint that clock
needs frequency from DT.
Thanks for review,
Krzysztof
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
