On 01/13, Chris Packham wrote:
> @@ -158,6 +170,14 @@ static const struct coreclk_soc_desc axp_coreclks = {
> .num_ratios = ARRAY_SIZE(axp_coreclk_ratios),
> };
>
> +static const struct coreclk_soc_desc mv98dx3236_coreclks = {
> + .get_tclk_freq = mv98dx3236_get_tclk_freq,
> + .get_cpu_freq = mv98dx3236_get_cpu_freq,
> + .get_clk_ratio = NULL,
> + .ratios = NULL,
> + .num_ratios = 0,
Are these intentionally initialized to 0 explicitly? Otherwise we
could leave them out and it's all the same.
> +};
> +
> /*
> * Clock Gating Control
> */
[..]
> @@ -243,5 +245,30 @@ static void __init of_cpu_clk_setup(struct device_node *node)
> iounmap(clock_complex_base);
> }
>
> +/* Use this function to call the generic setup with the correct
> + * clock operation
> + */
> +static void __init of_cpu_clk_setup(struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + _of_cpu_clk_setup(node, &cpu_ops);
> +}
> +
> CLK_OF_DECLARE(armada_xp_cpu_clock, "marvell,armada-xp-cpu-clock",
> of_cpu_clk_setup);
> +
> +/* Define the clock and operations for the mv98dx3236 - it cannot perform
> + * any operations.
> + */
> +static const struct clk_ops mv98dx3236_cpu_ops = {
> + .recalc_rate = NULL,
> + .round_rate = NULL,
> + .set_rate = NULL,
But clk_set_rate() works silently? Why not just register a clk
provider that returns a NULL pointer? Then there isn't any
structure to maintain?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
