On 11/03/2016 03:52 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/29, Rajendra Nayak wrote:
>> Add a helper API that will allow clk providers to turn their clk_hw
>> structures into struct clk pointer.
>>
>
> Did I suggest this?
I did this back when you suggested we store clk_hw's for all
clocks associated with a gdsc instead of extracting them from
the clients device tree node.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <rnayak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/clk/clk.c | 6 ++++++
>> include/linux/clk-provider.h | 1 +
>> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> index 820a939..a084132 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
>> @@ -186,6 +186,12 @@ const char *clk_hw_get_name(const struct clk_hw *hw)
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_hw_get_name);
>>
>> +struct clk *clk_hw_get_clk(const struct clk_hw *hw)
>> +{
>> + return hw->clk;
>
> I'd prefer we actually went through all the work and actually
> allocated another clk structure here. We can add another string
> or two for the dev_id and con_id too for debug/accouting
> purposes.
I don't quite get the part of allocating another clk structure,
can you please elaborate?
>
> The hw->clk is sort of a remnant of the clk_core introduction. I
> can't recall the exact plan (i.e. I should write it down
> somewhere once I do) but I think we want to get rid of hw->clk
> and have everyone use clk_hw_get_clk() instead. Then for
> traversals from the clk_hw pointer to a clk pointer are very
> clear.
>
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
