Messages in this thread | | | From | <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: fix at91sam9x5 peripheral clock number | Date | Wed, 20 Feb 2019 10:48:19 +0000 |
| |
On 20/02/2019 at 11:29, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > On 20/02/2019 10:20:28+0000, Nicolas Ferre wrote: >> 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. >> > > Well, that is not possible, what do you suggest?
Okay: seen: let's keep it like this.
> >>> if (!at91sam9x5_pmc) >>> return; >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Nicolas Ferre >
-- Nicolas Ferre
| |