On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 02:06:23PM -0500, Michael Welling wrote: > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:18:33AM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 11:12:03AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > On 17.04.2015 04:00, Michael Welling wrote: > > > >On Fri, Apr 17, 2015 at 01:23:50AM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > >>On 17.04.2015 00:09, Michael Welling wrote: > > > >>>On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 10:37:19PM +0200, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote: > > > >>>>On 16.04.2015 18:17, Michael Welling wrote: > > > [...] > > > >>>What would be the proper error path? > > > >>>What cleanup is required? > > > >> > > > >>A proper error path would be to release any claimed resource > > > >>on any error. If you look at the code, the only resources that > > > >>need to be released are the two clocks in question. > > > > > > > >So for every error return in the probe function and in the of si5351_dt_parse > > > >it needs to clk_put first right? > > > > > > Not quite. The driver should clk_put() every clock that it called a > > > [of_]clk_get() for. The thing is that clocks can be passed by > > > platform_data and we never claim them. > > > > I've always said clocks (as in struct clk) should never be passed through > > platform data. > > > > What is the alternative for systems that still use the old platform files? clkdev, which has pre-existed DT. -- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net. -- 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
