On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 12:05:20PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Wed, Jan 02, 2013 at 06:31:53PM +1300, Tony Prisk wrote: > > Why should a _consumer_ of a clock care? It is _very_ important that > > people get this idea - to a consumer, the struct clk is just an opaque > > cookie. The fact that it appears to be a pointer does _not_ mean that > > the driver can do any kind of dereferencing on that pointer - it should > > never do so. > > > > Thread can be viewed here: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/20/105 > > > > Ah. Grand. Thanks... > > Btw. The documentation for clk_get() really should include some of > this information. It *does* contain this information. The problem is that driver authors _ARE_ stupid, lazy morons who don't bother to read documentation. /** * clk_get - lookup and obtain a reference to a clock producer. * @dev: device for clock "consumer" * @id: clock consumer ID * * Returns a struct clk corresponding to the clock producer, or * valid IS_ERR() condition containing errno. The implementation * uses @dev and @id to determine the clock consumer, and thereby * the clock producer. (IOW, @id may be identical strings, but * clk_get may return different clock producers depending on @dev.) * * Drivers must assume that the clock source is not enabled. * * clk_get should not be called from within interrupt context. */ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
