Messages in this thread | | | From | "Turquette, Mike" <> | Date | Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:14:19 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] clk: Add a generic clock infrastructure |
| |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mike Turquette <mturquette@ti.com> wrote: > From: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> > struct clk_hw_ops { > int (*prepare)(struct clk_hw *); > void (*unprepare)(struct clk_hw *); > int (*enable)(struct clk_hw *); > void (*disable)(struct clk_hw *); > unsigned long (*recalc_rate)(struct clk_hw *);
In implementing recalc for divider clocks, I started to wonder, "why not just pass struct clk *clk into the clk_hw_ops func ptrs?".
recalc is an obvious example whereby we need access to parent->rate. The code usually ends up looking something like:
unsigned long omap_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw) { struct clk *parent; struct clk_hw_omap *oclk;
parent = hw->clk->parent; oclk = to_clk_omap(hw); ... }
That's a bit of a song and dance to have to do in almost every op, and often these ops will need access to stuff like clk->rate also. Is there any opposition to just passing in struct clk? e.g:
unsigned long omap_recalc_rate(struct clk *clk) { struct clk *parent; struct clk_hw_omap *oclk;
parent = clk->parent; oclk = to_clk_omap(clk->hw); ... }
It is a small nitpick, but it affects the API for everybody so best to get it right now before folks start migrating over to it.
Thanks, Mike
> int (*set_rate)(struct clk_hw *, > unsigned long, unsigned long *); > long (*round_rate)(struct clk_hw *, unsigned long); > int (*set_parent)(struct clk_hw *, struct clk *); > struct clk * (*get_parent)(struct clk_hw *); > }; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |