On 01/19, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk.c b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> index 97f3425..f2a1ff3 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk.c
> @@ -694,32 +751,32 @@ long __clk_mux_determine_rate(struct clk_hw *hw, unsigned long rate,
> unsigned long *best_parent_rate,
> struct clk_hw **best_parent_p)
> {
> - struct clk *clk = hw->clk, *parent, *best_parent = NULL;
> + struct clk_core *core = hw->clk->core, *parent, *best_parent = NULL;
Can't we just use hw->core here?
> int i, num_parents;
> unsigned long parent_rate, best = 0;
>
>
> @@ -820,15 +877,18 @@ int clk_prepare(struct clk *clk)
> {
> int ret;
>
> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(clk))
> + return PTR_ERR(clk);
What's going on here? Should be if (!clk)?
> +
> clk_prepare_lock();
> - ret = __clk_prepare(clk);
> + ret = clk_core_prepare(clk->core);
> clk_prepare_unlock();
>
> return ret;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_prepare);
> @@ -1066,9 +1149,24 @@ long clk_get_accuracy(struct clk *clk)
>
> return accuracy;
> }
> +
> +/**
> + * clk_get_accuracy - return the accuracy of clk
> + * @clk: the clk whose accuracy is being returned
> + *
> + * Simply returns the cached accuracy of the clk, unless
> + * CLK_GET_ACCURACY_NOCACHE flag is set, which means a recalc_rate will be
> + * issued.
> + * If clk is NULL then returns 0.
> + */
> +long clk_get_accuracy(struct clk *clk)
> +{
> + return clk_core_get_accuracy(clk->core);
Oops. Missing NULL check.
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_get_accuracy);
>
> @@ -1130,14 +1220,29 @@ unsigned long clk_get_rate(struct clk *clk)
[...]
> + *
> + * Simply returns the cached rate of the clk, unless CLK_GET_RATE_NOCACHE flag
> + * is set, which means a recalc_rate will be issued.
> + * If clk is NULL then returns 0.
> + */
> +unsigned long clk_get_rate(struct clk *clk)
> +{
> + return clk_core_get_rate(clk->core);
Oops. Missing NULL check.
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_get_rate);
> @@ -1629,37 +1741,26 @@ static struct clk *__clk_init_parent(struct clk *clk)
[...]
> -int clk_set_parent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *parent)
> +void __clk_reparent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *new_parent)
> +{
> + clk_core_reparent(clk->core, new_parent->core);
> +}
Is this used? Looks like we can remove it. Sorry, not sure how I
missed this last time.
> +
> +static int clk_core_set_parent(struct clk_core *clk, struct clk_core *parent)
> {
> int ret = 0;
> int p_index = 0;
> @@ -1719,6 +1820,28 @@ out:
[...]
> +int clk_set_parent(struct clk *clk, struct clk *parent)
> +{
> + return clk_core_set_parent(clk->core, parent->core);
Oops. Missing NULL check for both inputs.
> +}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(clk_set_parent);
>
> /**
> @@ -1793,18 +1909,31 @@ out:
> }
>
> /**
> + * clk_get_phase - return the phase shift of a clock signal
> + * @clk: clock signal source
> + *
> + * Returns the phase shift of a clock node in degrees, otherwise returns
> + * -EERROR.
> + */
> +int clk_get_phase(struct clk *clk)
> +{
> + return clk_core_get_phase(clk->core);
Oops. Missing NULL check.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
