On 12/28, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> @@ -2343,26 +2331,15 @@ static int __clk_core_init(struct clk_core *core)
> __func__, core->name);
>
> /*
> - * Allocate an array of struct clk *'s to avoid unnecessary string
> - * look-ups of clk's possible parents. This can fail for clocks passed
> - * in to clk_init during early boot; thus any access to core->parents[]
> - * must always check for a NULL pointer and try to populate it if
> - * necessary.
> + * clk_core_lookup returns NULL for parents that have not been
> + * clk_init'd; thus any access to clk->parents[] must check
> + * for a NULL pointer. We can always perform lazy lookups for
> + * missing parents later on.
> */
> - if (core->num_parents > 1) {
> - core->parents = kcalloc(core->num_parents,
> - sizeof(*core->parents), GFP_KERNEL);
> - /*
> - * clk_core_lookup returns NULL for parents that have not been
> - * clk_init'd; thus any access to clk->parents[] must check
> - * for a NULL pointer. We can always perform lazy lookups for
> - * missing parents later on.
> - */
> - if (core->parents)
> - for (i = 0; i < core->num_parents; i++)
> - core->parents[i] =
> - clk_core_lookup(core->parent_names[i]);
> - }
> + if (core->parents)
Do we even need this check? From what I can tell it's always true
now even when core->num_parents == 0. Plus we can always do the
for loop and terminate early when core->num_parents == 0.
> + for (i = 0; i < core->num_parents; i++)
> + core->parents[i] =
> + clk_core_lookup(core->parent_names[i]);
>
> core->parent = __clk_init_parent(core);
> nfo.html
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
