On 10/4/2012 10:05 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 05:52:45PM +0530, Sekhar Nori wrote:
>> On 10/3/2012 8:25 PM, Matt Porter wrote:
>>> +static struct clk pruss_clk = {
>>> + .name = "pruss",
>>> + .parent = &pll0_sysclk2,
>>> + .lpsc = DA8XX_LPSC0_PRUSS,
>>> +};
>>> +
>>> static struct clk uart0_clk = {
>>> .name = "uart0",
>>> .parent = &pll0_sysclk2,
>>> @@ -378,6 +384,7 @@ static struct clk_lookup da850_clks[] = {
>>> CLK(NULL, "tptc1", &tptc1_clk),
>>> CLK(NULL, "tpcc1", &tpcc1_clk),
>>> CLK(NULL, "tptc2", &tptc2_clk),
>>> + CLK(NULL, "pruss", &pruss_clk),
>>
>> This is actually incorrect since we should use device name rather than
>> con_id for matching the clock. If there is just one clock that the
>> driver needs, connection id should be NULL. Looking at the driver now,
>> the clk_get() call seems to pass a valid device pointer. So, I wonder
>> how you are able to look up the clock even with a NULL device name.
>
> I doublechecked the clk_get() find implentation to confirm that I indeed
> did get lucky here. Since pruss has only one instance and the clk_find()
> implementation looks for the best found match, it's able to find the
> clock just by the con_id, though it's not the "best possible" match in
> the find implementation...it's the "best found" match.. As you noted,
> this is incorrect though for a clock expected to be used from a driver
> context so I will address this in the update.
Thanks for debugging and clarifying.
Regards,
Sekhar
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
