On 09/24, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > 2016-09-23 23:47 GMT+02:00 Stephen Boyd <[email protected]>: > > On 09/21, Marcin Wojtas wrote: > >> @@ -203,80 +202,75 @@ static int cp110_syscon_clk_probe(struct > >> platform_device *pdev) > >> if (ret) > >> return ret; > >> > >> - cp110_clks = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(struct clk *), > >> - CP110_CLK_NUM, GFP_KERNEL); > >> - if (!cp110_clks) > >> - return -ENOMEM; > >> - > >> - cp110_clk_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, > >> - sizeof(*cp110_clk_data), > >> + cp110_clk_data = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*cp110_clk_data), > >> + sizeof(struct clk_hw *) * > >> CP110_CLK_NUM, > >> GFP_KERNEL); > > > > This doesn't look right. Why are calloc()ing clk_hw_onecell_data this > > way? > > After some time, at a first sight it seems I should've used following: > cp110_clk_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev, sizeof(*cp110_clk_data) + > sizeof(struct > clk_hw *) * CP110_CLK_NUM, > GFP_KERNEL); > > I'll re-check, but is that what you meant?
Yes that looks better. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
