Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2018-12-03 23:13:15) > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 03:35:10PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > If the DT doesn't have the #clock-cells property in the node being > > registered then calling clk_get() will fail for any consumer devices > > that point to the node with a phandle and clock specifier. I don't > > expect us to get very far into development if that's the case. > > Makes sense. So only potential thing to break is if someone out there > has broken DT/driver - where they currently see this failure. Eg. they > use node w/o #clock-cells as provider and where they try and fail > controlling this clock - but ignore the error (and system just "works" > with HW defaults). After this change they may actually succeed in > controlling - but do control wrong clock. > > Not likely scenario (sure happens somewhere) - and it involves already > broken design. So I agree with you. Besides, you are the maintainer for > clk framework and thus get the most of the rain if **** hits the fan =D Yes, exactly. > > > Of course, we don't fail in of_clk_add_provider() if there isn't a > > #clock-cells property in the node, we just happily add the node to the > > provider list and carry on. I doubt anyone is failing to specify the DT > > property, but maybe they are, in which case we could keep not failing > > and just add the node of whatever we're called with originally if > > neither the parent or the passed node have the #clock-cells property. I > > wouldn't try to go any higher than one node above the current node and > > look for a #clock-cells though. > > I think we should use parent device's node, not the paren node in DT, > right? But I agree, we should only look "one level up in the chain". Are these two things different? I'm suggesting looking at device_node::parent and trying to find a #clock-cells property.
