On 19 January 2015 at 21:59, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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?
Yup.
>> 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)?
Yeah, guess I miscopied it from a function that was expected to be
called chained with others.
>> +
>> 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.
Yup.
>> +}
>> 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.
Agreed.
>> +}
>> 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.
Yes, done.
>> +
>> +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.
Agreed.
>> +}
>> 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.
Agreed.
I have also reworked the changes to __clk_init to maintain the
existing behaviour.
Thanks,
Tomeu
> --
> 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-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
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
