On 01/22/2015 07:59 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 01/22, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >> On 01/22/2015 02:01 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> BTW, please try and fixup checkpatch warnings. >> >> What were you thinking of specifically? I'm running it with >> --max-line-length=106 and the other warnings are in clk-test.c that I >> still have to polish when I get some time. > > I can see that sometimes we exceed the 80 character limits that > are configured by default. We mostly stick to 80 in this file it > seems so I'm not sure why 106 is being used. Well, if I run checkpatch.pl with the default, I get the 80 char limit which I think worsens readability. I use 106 as an arbitrary placeholder for "a bit more than 80", taken from https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/17/229 . I'm reformatting to 80 columns. >>> >>> And we do it here where we could remove the #ifdef. >> >> Yeah, I tried to reduce the ifdefing back then and this is the simplest >> I could come up with. The reason for clk_get() to call >> __clk_create_clk() directly is that it has more relevant information >> with which to tag the per-user clk. >> >> of_clk_get_by_name() has the name of the node but not the dev_id, which >> in my testing looked as much less useful when debugging who did what to >> a clock. >> > > Agreed. But didn't we add __of_clk_get_by_name() so that we could > pass the dev_id and con_id to it? If we did that then all the > relevant information is there and we can call __clk_create_clk() > directly instead of relying on the caller to do it. Ah, that sounds much better indeed. Will be sending v13 shortly. Thanks, Tomeu -- 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
