On 13.12.2022 23:24, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Konrad Dybcio (2022-12-13 02:43:33)
>> @@ -284,12 +268,13 @@ static struct clk_rcg2 disp_cc_mdss_vsync_clk_src = {
>> .cmd_rcgr = 0x20a4,
>> .mnd_width = 0,
>> .hid_width = 5,
>> - .parent_map = disp_cc_parent_map_1,
>> .freq_tbl = ftbl_disp_cc_mdss_esc0_clk_src,
>> .clkr.hw.init = &(struct clk_init_data){
>> .name = "disp_cc_mdss_vsync_clk_src",
>> - .parent_data = disp_cc_parent_data_1,
>> - .num_parents = ARRAY_SIZE(disp_cc_parent_data_1),
>> + .parent_data = &(const struct clk_parent_data){
>> + .index = DT_BI_TCXO,
>> + },
>> + .num_parents = 1,
>> .flags = CLK_SET_RATE_PARENT,
>> .ops = &clk_rcg2_shared_ops,
>
> Is clk_rcg2_shared_ops and clk_rcg2_ops prepared for a NULL
> 'parent_map' pointer? _freq_tbl_determine_rate() is never called?
I didn't notice any regressions empirically, but perhaps it was
just by luck, you're right, disregard this patch..
Konrad
