Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2018-12-05 10:20:58) > On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 09:19:33AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > Quoting Matti Vaittinen (2018-12-04 23:00:46) > > > But that won't solve the issue if we don't do "dirty hacks" in driver. > > > The devm interface still only gets the device-pointer, not the DT node > > > as argument. And if DT node for device is NULL (like in MFD cases) - > > > then there is no parent node, only parent device with a node. For plain > > > of_clk_add_provider() the driver can just give the parent's node pointer > > > in cases where it knows it is the parent who has the provider data in > > > DT. But our original problem is in devm interfaces. > > > > > > > I was misunderstanding the MFD design. Should still work though, so I > > squashed this into the patch to clean things up a bit. Does this work > > for you? > > This looks good to me. Especially changing the of_is_clk_provider to > get_clk_provider_node which allows to remove some repetition. If you > apply this then I will drop my patch from the series. Just please let me > know. I will cook version 7 of the series at Friday - tomorrow is the > independence day in Finland and I'll be offline =) > Ok, I applied it this patch with the squash to clk-next.
