On Wednesday 20 June 2012 23:35:15 Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello.
>
> On 06/20/2012 11:25 PM, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> >> +#include <linux/clk.h>
>
> >> +static LIST_HEAD(clocks);
> >> +static DEFINE_MUTEX(clocks_mutex);
> >> +
> >> +struct clk *clk_get(struct device *dev, const char *name)
> >> +{
> >> + struct clk *c;
> >> + struct clk *ret = NULL;
> >> +
> >> + mutex_lock(&clocks_mutex);
> >> + list_for_each_entry(c, &clocks, node) {
> >> + if (!strcmp(c->name, name)) {
> >> + ret = c;
> >> + break;
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> + mutex_unlock(&clocks_mutex);
> >> +
> >> + return ret;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(clk_get);
>
> > This redefines a function that already is declared in <linux/clk.h> and
> > defined in drivers/clk/clkdev.c. Why?
>
> Because he doesn't support clkdev? clkdev support is optional.
I don't think it is a good idea not to support clkdev for new targets. Ralf
what do you think about it?
>
> >> +int clk_register(struct clk *clk)
> >> +{
> >> + mutex_lock(&clocks_mutex);
> >> + list_add(&clk->node, &clocks);
> >> + if (clk->ops->init)
> >> + clk->ops->init(clk);
> >> + mutex_unlock(&clocks_mutex);
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(clk_register);
>
> > Same here.
>
> > Ralf
>
> WBR, Sergei
> --
> 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/
--
Florian
