Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2018-05-30 01:43:19)
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/Kconfig b/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> index 41492e980ef4..4b045699bb5e 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> +++ b/drivers/clk/Kconfig
> @@ -279,6 +279,15 @@ config COMMON_CLK_STM32H7
> ---help---
> Support for stm32h7 SoC family clocks
>
> +config COMMON_CLK_BD71837
> + tristate "Clock driver for ROHM BD71837 PMIC MFD"
> + depends on MFD_BD71837
> + depends on I2C=y
Why depend on I2C=y?
> + depends on OF
Why depend on OF?
> + help
> + This driver supports ROHM BD71837 PMIC clock.
> +
> +
> source "drivers/clk/bcm/Kconfig"
> source "drivers/clk/hisilicon/Kconfig"
> source "drivers/clk/imgtec/Kconfig"
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-bd71837.c b/drivers/clk/clk-bd71837.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 000000000000..91456d1077ac
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-bd71837.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0
> +// Copyright (C) 2018 ROHM Semiconductors
> +// bd71837.c -- ROHM BD71837MWV clock driver
> +
> +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> +#include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/init.h>
> +#include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> +#include <linux/slab.h>
> +#include <linux/mfd/bd71837.h>
> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> +#include <linux/clkdev.h>
> +
> +static int bd71837_clk_enable(struct clk_hw *hw);
> +static void bd71837_clk_disable(struct clk_hw *hw);
> +static int bd71837_clk_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw);
> +
> +struct bd71837_clk {
> + struct clk_hw hw;
> + uint8_t reg;
> + uint8_t mask;
> + unsigned long rate;
> + struct platform_device *pdev;
> + struct bd71837 *mfd;
> +};
> +
> +static unsigned long bd71837_clk_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> + unsigned long parent_rate);
> +
> +static const struct clk_ops bd71837_clk_ops = {
> + .recalc_rate = &bd71837_clk_recalc_rate,
> + .prepare = &bd71837_clk_enable,
> + .unprepare = &bd71837_clk_disable,
> + .is_prepared = &bd71837_clk_is_enabled,
> +};
Move this structure after the function definitions. And drop the forward
declared functions.
> +
> +static int bd71837_clk_set(struct clk_hw *hw, int status)
> +{
> + struct bd71837_clk *c = container_of(hw, struct bd71837_clk, hw);
> +
> + return bd71837_update_bits(c->mfd, c->reg, c->mask, status);
> +}
> +
> +static void bd71837_clk_disable(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> + int rv;
> + struct bd71837_clk *c = container_of(hw, struct bd71837_clk, hw);
> +
> + rv = bd71837_clk_set(hw, 0);
> + if (rv)
> + dev_err(&c->pdev->dev, "Failed to disable 32K clk (%d)\n", rv);
Why is a disable error message more important than an enable error
message? Please drop this message and rely on callers to indicate if
enabling their clk didn't work for some reason.
> +}
> +
> +static int bd71837_clk_enable(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> + return bd71837_clk_set(hw, 1);
> +}
> +
> +static int bd71837_clk_is_enabled(struct clk_hw *hw)
> +{
> + struct bd71837_clk *c = container_of(hw, struct bd71837_clk, hw);
> +
> + return c->mask & bd71837_reg_read(c->mfd, c->reg);
Please put this on two or more lines so we know what the type of
bd71837_reg_read() returns:
u32 reg = bd71837_reg_read(....)
return c->mask & reg;
> +}
> +
> +static unsigned long bd71837_clk_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw,
> + unsigned long parent_rate)
> +{
> + struct bd71837_clk *c = container_of(hw, struct bd71837_clk, hw);
> +
> + return c->rate;
Recalc rate should read the hardware instead of returning a cached rate
unless it can't actually read hardware.
> +}
> +
> +static int bd71837_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct bd71837_clk *c;
> + int rval = -ENOMEM;
> + struct bd71837 *mfd = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> + const char *errstr = "memory allocation for bd71837 data failed";
We don't need allocation error messages.
> + struct clk_init_data init = {
> + .name = "bd71837-32k-out",
> + .ops = &bd71837_clk_ops,
> + };
> +
> + c = kzalloc(sizeof(struct bd71837_clk), GFP_KERNEL);
Use sizeof(*c) instead so we don't have to worry about type mismatches.
> + if (!c)
> + goto err_out;
> +
> + c->reg = BD71837_REG_OUT32K;
> + c->mask = BD71837_OUT32K_EN;
> + c->rate = BD71837_CLK_RATE;
Is the plan to have more clks supported by this driver in the future?
Because right now it seems to make a structure up and then hardcode the
members for a single clk so I'm not sure why those registers aren't just
hardcoded in the clk_ops functions that use them.
> + c->mfd = mfd;
> + c->pdev = pdev;
> +
> + if (pdev->dev.of_node)
If there isn't an of_node it would be NULL, and then calling the
function below would cause it to not update the init name? Seems like it
could be called unconditionally.
> + of_property_read_string_index(pdev->dev.of_node,
> + "clock-output-names", 0,
> + &init.name);
> +
> + c->hw.init = &init;
> +
> + errstr = "failed to register 32K clk";
The 'errstr' thing is not standard. Please just call dev_err() directly
with the string you want to print. And consider not printing anything at
all.
> + rval = clk_hw_register(&pdev->dev, &c->hw);
> + if (rval)
> + goto err_free;
> +
> + errstr = "failed to register clkdev for bd71837";
> + rval = clk_hw_register_clkdev(&c->hw, init.name, NULL);
Are you using the clkdev lookup? Or this is just added for backup
purposes? If this is a mostly DT driver then please drop this part of
the patch and rely on of_clk_hw_add_provider() to handle the lookup
instead.
> + if (rval)
> + goto err_unregister;
> +
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, c);
> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "bd71837_clk successfully probed\n");
There's a pr_debug() in really_probe() for this.
> +
> + return 0;
> +
> +err_unregister:
> + clk_hw_unregister(&c->hw);
> +err_free:
> + kfree(c);
> +err_out:
> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "%s\n", errstr);
> + return rval;
> +}
> +
> +static int bd71837_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> + struct bd71837_clk *c = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> +
> + if (c) {
> + clk_hw_unregister(&c->hw);
Use devm to register clks.
> + kfree(c);
and devm_kzalloc()
> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, NULL);
This doesn't need to be done. Drop it.
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
--
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
