On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 07:02:33PM +0000, srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> When BAM is remotely controlled it does not sound correct to control
> its clk on Linux side. Make it optional, so that its not madatory
s/madatory/mandatory
> for remote controlled BAM instances.
>
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Kandagatla <srinivas.kandagatla@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c | 15 ++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c b/drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c
> index 03c4eb3fd314..78e488e8f96d 100644
> --- a/drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c
> +++ b/drivers/dma/qcom/bam_dma.c
> @@ -1180,13 +1180,14 @@ static int bam_dma_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> "qcom,controlled-remotely");
>
> bdev->bamclk = devm_clk_get(bdev->dev, "bam_clk");
but you still do clk_get unconditionally?
> - if (IS_ERR(bdev->bamclk))
> - return PTR_ERR(bdev->bamclk);
> -
> - ret = clk_prepare_enable(bdev->bamclk);
> - if (ret) {
> - dev_err(bdev->dev, "failed to prepare/enable clock\n");
> - return ret;
> + if (IS_ERR(bdev->bamclk)) {
> + bdev->bamclk = NULL;
> + } else {
> + ret = clk_prepare_enable(bdev->bamclk);
> + if (ret) {
> + dev_err(bdev->dev, "failed to prepare/enable clock\n");
> + return ret;
> + }
wouldn't it be better to set that an instance is remote controlled and thus
not at all visible to Linux?
> }
>
> ret = bam_init(bdev);
> --
> 2.15.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe dmaengine" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
~Vinod
--
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
