On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 01:21:40PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 8:35 AM, Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 02:53:43PM -0800, Andrey Smirnov wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >> drivers/usb/host/ohci-at91.c | 9 +++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-at91.c b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-at91.c
> >> index 0f5c8f1..c70d898 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/usb/host/ohci-at91.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/usb/host/ohci-at91.c
> >> @@ -47,7 +47,16 @@ static int at91_ohci_probe(struct device_d *dev)
> >> struct ohci_regs __iomem *regs = (struct ohci_regs __iomem *)dev->resource[0].start;
> >>
> >> iclk = clk_get(NULL, "ohci_clk");
> >> + if (IS_ERR(iclk)) {
> >> + dev_err(dev, "Failed to get 'iclk'\n");
> > iclk is the internal name. Woudl it make more sense to use "ohci_clk" here?
> >
>
> I was looking at the corresponding kernel driver and that's where I
> got the name for the variable. If you think 'ohci_clk' is a better
> name I have no problem changing it.
It is not something I have strong opinions about.
But I later noticed you sued "interface clk" and "function clk".
So it would be good to be consistent.
Even if the kernel is not consistent we can do better in barebox.
Sam
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
