On Tuesday 11 February 2014 15:04:38 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:08:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 February 2014, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:37:09AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote: > > > > > > > - pl022->clk = devm_clk_get(&adev->dev, NULL); > > > > + /* > > > > + * For compatibility with old DTBs and platform data, fall back to the > > > > + * first clock if there's not an explicitly named "sspclk" entry. > > > > + */ > > > > + pl022->clk = devm_clk_get(&adev->dev, "sspclk"); > > > > + if (IS_ERR(pl022->clk)) > > > > + pl022->clk = devm_clk_get(&adev->dev, NULL); > > > > + > > > > > > I'll just have a bit of a grumble here and point out that this sort of > > > stuff always worries me with the convention of using nameless clocks - > > > it causes hassle adding further clocks. > > > > I think the best solution for this is to continue with anonymous clocks > > rather than adding names after the fact. This could be done (for DT-only > > drivers) using the of_clk_get() interface that takes an index, or > > we could add a generic dev_clk_get_index() or similar interface that > > has the same behavior but also works for clkdev. > > Mixing devm_* and non-devm_* interfaces doesn't work. If you want to do > that, devm_of_clk_get() would be a prerequisit. Yes, good point. So if we want to do it, we would have to add a new function anyway, there is just the question whether it should be devm_of_clk_get() or devm_clk_get_index() if that can also work for non-DT devices. Do you think the latter actually makes sense in the clkdev interfaces? I'm not familiar enough with the code to tell how that would be implemented in a reasonable way. Arnd -- 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
