lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 3/4] clk: introduce the common clock framework
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > So the right way to deal with it is to have an array of valid names
> > with no holes and NULL pointers allowed and have a mapping from the
> > array index to the register value.
>
> This is essentially what the .set_rate callback does. It takes as
> input "u8 index" and peforms the hardware specific magic to select the
> correct parent clock. This might be a register write using that exact
> same index, or it might be a single-bit register write using that
> index as the shift value, or it might translate that index into the
> data sent to an i2c device (where the address would be stored in
> struct clk_foo), etc etc.
>
> We both agree that .parent_names must contain valid names and should
> not have holes. What I don't understand is if you are saying that we
> should allow NULL ptrs as names; that seems contradictory but I want
> to make sure I'm reading you correctly.

I should have said: no holes and no NULL pointers, just an array of
valid names.

Thanks,

tglx


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-14 23:21    [W:0.046 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site