Hi Stephen, On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 01:38:53PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Manivannan Sadhasivam (2019-09-16 09:14:41) > > The new implementation for determining parent map uses multiple ways > > to pass parent info. The order in which it gets processed depends on > > the first available member. Hence, it is necessary to zero init the > > clk_init_data struct so that the expected member gets processed correctly. > > So, add a warning if multiple clk_init_data members are available during > > clk registration. > > > > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > drivers/clk/clk.c | 8 ++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c > > index c0990703ce54..7d6d6984c979 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c > > @@ -3497,6 +3497,14 @@ static int clk_core_populate_parent_map(struct clk_core *core) > > if (!num_parents) > > return 0; > > > > + /* > > + * Check for non-zero initialized clk_init_data struct. This is > > + * required because, we only require one of the (parent_names/ > > + * parent_data/parent_hws) to be set at a time. Otherwise, the > > + * current code would use first available member. > > + */ > > + WARN_ON((parent_names && parent_data) || (parent_names && parent_hws)); > > + > > This will warn for many drivers because they set clk_init_data on the > stack and assign parent_names but let junk from the stack be assigned to > parent_data. Yes, I agree. > The code uses parent_names first and then looks for > parent_data or parent_hws because of this fact of life that we've never > required clk_init_data to be initialized to all zero. > Do you want me to just drop this patch or have any idea to make it better? Thanks, Mani > > /* > > * Avoid unnecessary string look-ups of clk_core's possible parents by > > * having a cache of names/clk_hw pointers to clk_core pointers.
