On 23-08-19, 23:31, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> On Thu 22 Aug 10:01 PDT 2019, Vinod Koul wrote:
>
> > Convert the rpmh clock driver to use the new parent data scheme by
> > specifying the parent data for board clock.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vkoul@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c | 10 ++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> > index c3fd632af119..0bced7326a20 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rpmh.c
> > @@ -95,7 +95,10 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(rpmh_clk_lock);
> > .hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){ \
> > .ops = &clk_rpmh_ops, \
> > .name = #_name, \
> > - .parent_names = (const char *[]){ "xo_board" }, \
> > + .parent_data = &(const struct clk_parent_data){ \
> > + .fw_name = "xo_board", \
> > + .name = "xo_board", \
>
> Iiuc .name here refers to the global clock namespace and .fw_name refers
> to the device_node local name space. As such I really prefer this to be:
>
> .fw_name = "xo",
> .name = "xo_board",
>
> This ensures the backwards compatibility (when using global lookup),
> without complicating the node-local naming.
Sure, while thinking more on this, should we finalize the name as xo or
cxo, I see latter being also used at few places. It would be great to
get a name and stick to it for longer time :)
--
~Vinod
