On 10/16, Archit Taneja wrote:
>
>
> On 10/15/2015 02:05 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >On 10/14, Archit Taneja wrote:
> >>+ bytediv->hw.init = &bytediv_init;
> >>+ bytediv->reg = pll_28nm->mmio + REG_DSI_28nm_8960_PHY_PLL_CTRL_9;
> >>+
> >>+ snprintf(parent, 32, "dsi%dvco_clk", pll_28nm->id);
> >>+ snprintf(clk_name, 32, "dsi%dpllbyte", pll_28nm->id);
> >>+
> >>+ bytediv_init.name = clk_name;
> >>+ bytediv_init.ops = &clk_bytediv_ops;
> >>+ bytediv_init.flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT;
> >>+ bytediv_init.parent_names = (const char *[]) { parent };
> >
> >Can't we just do &parent instead of this anonymous array?
>
> &parent doesn't make sense here. parent in this function is an array
> of characters, not a pointer to a character.
>
> I can think of only this way. We do something similar when we call
> clk_register_mux() in dsi_pll_28nm.c.
>
Oh I missed that. Why not allocate the strings instead of putting
them on the stack?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
