On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 10:05 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Nicolas Saenz Julienne (2019-06-06 07:22:58)
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-raspberrypi.c b/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-
> > raspberrypi.c
> > index b1365cf19f3a..052296b5fbe4 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-raspberrypi.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/bcm/clk-raspberrypi.c
> > @@ -63,6 +63,8 @@ struct raspberrypi_firmware_prop {
> > __le32 disable_turbo;
> > } __packed;
> >
> > +static struct platform_device *rpi_cpufreq;
>
> Why can't this be stored in platform driver data?
It actually could, I just followed the same pattern as the code found in patch
#3. I'll update it in the next version if you prefer it.
>
> > +
> > static int raspberrypi_clock_property(struct rpi_firmware *firmware, u32
> > tag,
> > u32 clk, u32 *val)
> > {
> > @@ -285,6 +287,17 @@ static int raspberrypi_clk_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > + rpi_cpufreq = platform_device_register_data(dev, "raspberrypi-
> > cpufreq",
> > + -1, NULL, 0);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int raspberrypi_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > + platform_device_unregister(rpi_cpufreq);
> > + rpi_cpufreq = NULL;
>
> This assignment to NULL looks unnecessary.
>
Same as above, but now that you pointed out, it's true it doesn't have any
effect
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
