Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:18:44 +0100 (CET) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [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
| |