On 2022-05-24 01:44:49, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 01:44, Dmitry Baryshkov > <dmitry.baryshkov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 24 May 2022 at 00:38, Marijn Suijten > > <marijn.suijten@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > parent_hw pointers are easier to manage and cheaper to use than > > > repeatedly formatting the parent name and subsequently leaving the clk > > > framework to perform lookups based on that name. > > > > Can you please add a followup patch (or a preface one) removing the > > rest of devm_kzalloc()'ed clock names. > > Argh, stupid me, you did that in the next patch. Please ignore this. It's a fair observation, one that bothered me as well. I've reordered the next patch before this one for the next revision, to have clearer separation (since this patch was currently deleting 1/3 of the devm_kzalloc()'s). - Marijn
