lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/4] clk: 88pm800: Add clk provider driver for 88pm800 family of devices
On 07/21/2015 12:36 PM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>
> On Wednesday 22 July 2015 12:40 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 07/21/2015 04:07 AM, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
>>> +
>>> + pm800_clks = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>>> + sizeof(*pm800_clks) * PM800_CLKS_NUM,
>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> devm_kcalloc()
>>
>>> + if (!pm800_clks)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>>> + clk_table = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
>>> + sizeof(struct clk *) * PM800_CLKS_NUM,
>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>> devm_kcalloc()
>>
>
> why kcalloc?
> Is it because it take another argument for to allocate array?
>

Yes. See Chapter 14 of Documentation/CodingStyle for why devm_kcalloc()
is preferred.

>
>>> + if (!clk_table)
>>> + return -ENOMEM;
>>> +
>
>
> < snip >
>
>>> + of_clk_data);
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Fail to add OF clk provider : %d\n",
>>> ret);
>>> + goto err;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Common for all 32KHz clock output */
>>> + ret = pm800_init_clk(&pm800_clks[0]);
>>
>> Shouldn't we do this before registering the clocks with the framework?
>>
>
> Actually I thought of this, but moved it at the end because, I feel
> this init should happen only when we are sure that clock is ready for
> consumption. This is HW initialization where we will be setting
> FREERUNNIG mode (and similar stuffs), so thought it would be bad idea
> to set it first and then on error (later in probe) clear it. Not sure
> whether it has any impact on HW behaviour.
> Also, specially internal reference counter is changing in the init.
> Just tried to avoid back-n-forth set-n-clear of this.

Ok.

>
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to initialize clk : %d\n", ret);
>>> + goto err;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + platform_set_drvdata(pdev, pm800_clks);
>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> +err:
>>> + for (i = 0; i < PM800_CLKS_NUM; i++) {
>>> + if (pm800_clks[i].lookup)
>>> + clkdev_drop(pm800_clks[i].lookup);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return ret;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static int pm800_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>> +{
>>> + struct pm800_clk *pm800_clks = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> + of_clk_del_provider(pm800_clks[0].clk_np);
>>> + /* Drop the reference obtained in pm800_clk_parse_dt */
>>> + of_node_put(pm800_clks[0].clk_np);
>>
>> This is odd. Why are we keeping the reference in the driver?
>>
>
> Honestly I do not have any good answer here. I have to admit that it is
> getting carry forwarded from legacy driver.
>

Well we shouldn't do things if we don't know why we're doing them.
Krzysztof?

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-21 23:01    [W:1.343 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site