On 04/03/2025 19:16, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Kaustabh Chakraborty (2025-02-28 19:57:13)
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos7870.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos7870.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2ec4a4e489be30bd1cd2e6deac006bb8ac5bdc57
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-exynos7870.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,1830 @@
>> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
>> +/*
>> + * Copyright (C) 2015 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
>> + * Author: Kaustabh Chakraborty <kauschluss@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> + *
>> + * Common Clock Framework support for Exynos7870.
>> + */
>> +
>> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>
> Please remove this include as this is a clk provider and not a clk
> consumer.
I fixed it up for all drivers.
>
>> +#include <linux/clk-provider.h>
>> +#include <linux/of.h>
>> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
>> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
>> +
>> +#include <dt-bindings/clock/samsung,exynos7870-cmu.h>
>> +
>> +#include "clk.h"
>> +#include "clk-exynos-arm64.h"
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Register offsets for CMU_MIF (0x10460000)
>> + */
> [...]
>> +
>> +static const struct samsung_cmu_info peri_cmu_info __initconst = {
>> + .gate_clks = peri_gate_clks,
>> + .nr_gate_clks = ARRAY_SIZE(peri_gate_clks),
>> + .clk_regs = peri_clk_regs,
>> + .nr_clk_regs = ARRAY_SIZE(peri_clk_regs),
>> + .nr_clk_ids = PERI_NR_CLK,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int __init exynos7870_cmu_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> +{
>> + const struct samsung_cmu_info *info;
>> + struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
>> +
>> + info = of_device_get_match_data(dev);
>
> Use device APIs please: device_get_match_data()
I expect here a follow up patch.
>
>> + exynos_arm64_register_cmu(dev, dev->of_node, info);
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static const struct of_device_id exynos7870_cmu_of_match[] = {
>> + {
>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos7870-cmu-mif",
>> + .data = &mif_cmu_info,
>> + }, {
>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos7870-cmu-dispaud",
>> + .data = &dispaud_cmu_info,
>> + }, {
>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos7870-cmu-fsys",
>> + .data = &fsys_cmu_info,
>> + }, {
>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos7870-cmu-g3d",
>> + .data = &g3d_cmu_info,
>> + }, {
>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos7870-cmu-isp",
>> + .data = &isp_cmu_info,
>> + }, {
>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos7870-cmu-mfcmscl",
>> + .data = &mfcmscl_cmu_info,
>> + }, {
>> + .compatible = "samsung,exynos7870-cmu-peri",
>> + .data = &peri_cmu_info,
>> + }, {
>> + },
>> +};
>> +
>> +static struct platform_driver exynos7870_cmu_driver __refdata = {
>
> Having __refdata here looks wrong.
>
>> + .driver = {
>> + .name = "exynos7870-cmu",
>> + .of_match_table = exynos7870_cmu_of_match,
>> + .suppress_bind_attrs = true,
>> + },
>> + .probe = exynos7870_cmu_probe,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static int __init exynos7870_cmu_init(void)
>> +{
>> + return platform_driver_register(&exynos7870_cmu_driver);
>
> Is this supposed to be platform_driver_probe()? All the __init markings
> in the samsung clk driver look like potential problems if anything
> defers or is made into a module.
Indeed code is confusing but still correct. This is called from
core_initcall and nothing referencing __init/refdata can defer nor be a
module. There are modules but, AFAIR, they don't use __init/__refdata.
The __refdata here was probably so this can reference __initconst in
other places.
As you pointed out, probably the correct solution is to use
platform_driver_probe().
Best regards,
Krzysztof
