Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: fix at91sam9x5 peripheral clock number | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:20:28 +0000 |
| |
On 19/02/2019 at 17:51, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > nck() looks at the last id in an array and unfortunately, > at91sam9x35_periphck has a sentinel, hence the id is 0 and the calculated
Well, the logic for all other SoC clk files is to not have such a sentinel and deal differently with this type of array: why not modify this file to match with others?
> number of peripheral clocks is 1 instead of a maximum of 31. > > Fixes: 1eabdc2f9dd8 ("clk: at91: add at91sam9x5 PMCs driver") > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com> > --- > drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c | 3 +-- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c > index 2fe225a697df..d37e7ed9eb90 100644 > --- a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c > +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c > @@ -144,8 +144,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9x5_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np, > return; > > at91sam9x5_pmc = pmc_data_allocate(PMC_MAIN + 1, > - nck(at91sam9x5_systemck), > - nck(at91sam9x35_periphck), 0); > + nck(at91sam9x5_systemck), 31, 0);
I would prefer like it's done on other SoC clk files.
> if (!at91sam9x5_pmc) > return; > >
-- Nicolas Ferre
| |