On 4/25/19 23:29, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Jorge Ramirez (2019-04-22 04:44:50) >> On 2/22/19 19:11, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> Quoting Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz (2019-01-28 10:32:52) >>>> @@ -61,6 +65,25 @@ static int qcom_apcs_msm8916_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>> if (!a53cc) >>>> return -ENOMEM; >>>> >>>> + /* check if the parent names are present in the device tree */ >>> >>> This looks odd. >>> >>>> + ret = devm_clk_bulk_get(parent, ARRAY_SIZE(pclks), pclks); >>>> + if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER) >>>> + return ret; >>> >>> Why can't we use of_clk_parent_fill() if we know this is always a DT >>> platform? The parent clks may not be registered at the time of probe? >> >> yes, and AFAICS the important thing at this point is that the clock is >> registered hence the handling of defer. >> >> I could use of_clk_parent_fill and then - if needed - call >> devm_clk_bulk_get but I am not sure of the gains of doing it (wouldnt >> this just make the code more confusing?) > > Yeah of_clk_parent_fill() isn't the best approach. But it at least keeps > this driver from using clk consumer APIs? ok will do that then. > >> >> >>> Maybe this series should wait for the parent registration stuff I'm >>> working on so that this can be made simpler. >> >> the need for the clock name is not intrinsic to this driver (the driver >> itself doesnt use these names) but it just feeds these to the framework. >> >> I was looking into your parent registration code and I am not sure how >> can I use it in this particular driver other than simply removing the >> names and hoping that things are handled properly at the lower >> levels.... could you clarify please? >> > > I think so. I've forgotten the context of this patch, but the general > idea would be to specify the parents with clock-names or DT index in the > DT node for the clks registered here and not use of_clk_parent_fill() or > do any sort of devm_clk_bulk_get() calls. Then the framework will take > care of finding the parents for the clks and hooking things up properly > for the parent-child relationship. > > ok will try that. thanks for confirming!
