On 20-06-17, 14:08, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 06/20, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > + */
> > +struct opp_table *dev_pm_opp_set_clkname(struct device *dev, const char
> > *name)
> > +{
> > + struct opp_table *opp_table;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + opp_table = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_table(dev);
> > + if (!opp_table)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> > +
> > + /* This should be called before OPPs are initialized */
> > + if (WARN_ON(!list_empty(&opp_table->opp_list))) {
> > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Already have clkname set */
> > + if (opp_table->clk_name) {
> > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > + goto err;
> > + }
> > +
> > + opp_table->clk_name = kstrdup(name, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!opp_table->clk_name) {
>
> Is there a reason to duplicate clk_name instead of using the clk
> structure returned from clk_get()? Is it because we may already
> have opp_table->clk set from default init? Why can't we always
> clk_put() the clk structure if it's !IS_ERR() and then allow
> dev_pm_opp_set_clkname() to be called many times in succession?
> Long story short, I don't see the benefit to allocating the name
> again here just to use it as a mechanism to know if the APIs have
> been called symmetrically.
Yeah, it was kind of required in what I was trying to do earlier, but
not anymore.
--
viresh
