Quoting Taniya Das (2018-05-08 09:57:36)
> On 5/8/2018 5:58 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Taniya Das (2018-05-07 03:48:06)
> >> Will be okay, if I can the following?
> >>
> >> _probe...
> >> {
> >> struct clk_rpmh_desc *hw_desc_data;
> >> ....
> >>
> >> hw_desc_data = kmemdup(desc, sizeof(*desc), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>
> >> ...
> >> ret = devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider(&pdev->dev, of_clk_rpmh_hw_get,
> >> hw_desc_data);
> >> ....
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> And also I fix the "getter" function.
> >
> > I'd rather see the check for out of bounds number just go away, unless
> > that's helping something. The kmemdup() doesn't look good.
> >
>
> I think it is better to copy the desc data to "clk_hw_onecell_data", as
> I would also have to fix the "getter" function to check for out of bound
> numbers (idx >= num_clks).
>
Hmm ok. It would be nicer if we didn't have to duplicate the pointers
just because of const though. I'd rather have the cast away of const and
a comment indicating we know what we're doing. Maybe in the future we
can make the getter function take a const void pointer.
--
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
