Am Donnerstag, den 26.02.2015, 09:02 +0000 schrieb Ben Dooks: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:27:57AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote: [...] > > From: Michael Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:11:01 -0800 > > Subject: [PATCH] clk: introduce clk_is_match > > > > Some drivers compare struct clk pointers as a means of knowing > > if the two pointers reference the same clock hardware. This behavior is > > dubious (drivers must not dereference struct clk), but did not cause any > > regressions until the per-user struct clk patch was merged. Now the test > > for matching clk's will always fail with per-user struct clk's. > > > > clk_is_match is introduced to fix the regression and prevent drivers > > from comparing the pointers manually. > > small observaton, clk_is_same() is linguistically nicer. How about clk_equal() ? regards Philipp -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-serial" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
