On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 10:56:14PM +0000, Leonard Crestez wrote: > On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 08:37 +0000, Abel Vesa wrote: > > +struct clk *imx_clk_composite_8m_flags(const char *name, > > + const char **parent_names, > > + int num_parents, void __iomem *reg, > > + unsigned long flags); > > + > > +#define __imx_clk_composite_8m(name, parent_names, reg, flags) \ > > + imx_clk_composite_8m_flags(name, parent_names, \ > > + ARRAY_SIZE(parent_names), reg, \ > > + flags | CLK_SET_RATE_NO_REPARENT | CLK_OPS_PARENT_ENABLE) > > + > > +#define imx_clk_composite_8m(name, parent_names, reg) \ > > + __imx_clk_composite_8m(name, parent_names, reg, 0) > > + > > +#define imx_clk_composite_8m_critical(name, parent_names, reg) \ > > + __imx_clk_composite_8m(name, parent_names, reg, CLK_IS_CRITICAL) > > Does anyone else think that the "8m" would be prettier next to imx > rather than as a suffix? Using imx8m_clk_composite* and > imx7ulp_clk_composite* makes more sense to me. +1 Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
