On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 04:03:56PM +0800, Chen-Yu Tsai wrote:
> From: Chen-Yu Tsai <w...@csie.org>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> This is series is the first part of a large series (I haven't done the
> rest) of patches to rewrite the clk parent relationship handling within
> the sunxi-ng clk driver. This is based on Stephen's recent work allowing
> clk drivers to specify clk parents using struct clk_hw * or parsing DT
> phandles in the clk node.
>
> This series can be split into a few major parts:
>
> 1) The first patch is a small fix for clk debugfs representation. This
> was done before commit 1a079560b145 ("clk: Cache core in
> clk_fetch_parent_index() without names") was posted, so it might or
> might not be needed. Found this when checking my work using
> clk_possible_parents.
>
> 2) A bunch of CLK_HW_INIT_* helper macros are added. These cover the
> situations I encountered, or assume I will encounter, such as single
> internal (struct clk_hw *) parent, single DT (struct clk_parent_data
> .fw_name), multiple internal parents, and multiple mixed (internal +
> DT) parents. A special variant for just an internal single parent is
> added, CLK_HW_INIT_HWS, which lets the driver share the singular
> list, instead of having the compiler create a compound literal every
> time. It might even make sense to only keep this variant.
>
> 3) A bunch of CLK_FIXED_FACTOR_* helper macros are added. The rationale
> is the same as the single parent CLK_HW_INIT_* helpers.
>
> 4) Bulk conversion of CLK_FIXED_FACTOR to use local parent references,
> either struct clk_hw * or DT .fw_name types, whichever the hardware
> requires.
>
> 5) The beginning of SUNXI_CCU_GATE conversion to local parent
> references. This part is not done. They are included as justification
> and examples for the shared list of clk parents case.That series is pretty neat. As far as sunxi is concerned, you can add my Acked-by: Maxime Ripard <maxime.rip...@bootlin.com> > I realize this is going to be many patches every time I convert a clock > type. Going forward would the people involved prefer I send out > individual patches like this series, or squash them all together? For bisection, I guess it would be good to keep the approach you've had in this series. If this is really too much, I guess we can always change oru mind later on. Thanks! Maxime -- Maxime Ripard, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
