Hi Laurent,
On 10/28/2013 10:05 PM, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
On Tuesday 24 September 2013 23:38:44 Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
On 08/30/2013 04:53 PM, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote:
This patch series implements clock deregistration in the common clock
framework. Comparing to v5 it only includes further corrections of NULL
clock handling.
[...]
---------8<------------------
From ca5963041aad67e31324cb5d4d5e2cfce1706d4f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sylwester Nawrocki<s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 23:52:04 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] omap3isp: Pass NULL device pointer to clk_register()
Signed-off-by: Sylwester Nawrocki<s.nawrocki@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.h | 1 +
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
index df3a0ec..d7f3c98 100644
--- a/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
+++ b/drivers/media/platform/omap3isp/isp.c
@@ -290,9 +290,11 @@ static int isp_xclk_init(struct isp_device *isp)
struct clk_init_data init;
unsigned int i;
+ for (i = 0; i< ARRAY_SIZE(isp->xclks); ++i)
+ isp->xclks[i] = ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
I don't think you've compile-tested this :-)
Thank you for the comments. Yeah, I messed up this, I thought this part
got recompiled but it didn't. I've fixed this in the recently posted
patch.
+
for (i = 0; i< ARRAY_SIZE(isp->xclks); ++i) {
struct isp_xclk *xclk =&isp->xclks[i];
- struct clk *clk;
xclk->isp = isp;
xclk->id = i == 0 ? ISP_XCLK_A : ISP_XCLK_B;
@@ -306,9 +308,9 @@ static int isp_xclk_init(struct isp_device *isp)
xclk->hw.init =&init;
- clk = devm_clk_register(isp->dev,&xclk->hw);
- if (IS_ERR(clk))
- return PTR_ERR(clk);
+ xclk->clk = clk_register(NULL,&xclk->hw);
+ if (IS_ERR(xclk->clk))
+ return PTR_ERR(xclk->clk);
This doesn't introduce any regression in the sense that it will trade a
problem for another one, so I'm fine with it in the short. Could you add a
small comment above the clk_register() call to explain why the first argument
is NULL ?
I'm not entirely happy about doing something like that. Nevertheless I
didn't
hear so far any better proposals and I guess it could be treated as a short
term modification while we're working on proper handling of those circular
references.
--
Thanks,
Sylwester
