On 10/10/2012 8:04 PM, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote:
>>>> +struct clk *clk_register_davinci_pll(struct device *dev, const char *name,
>>>> + const char *parent_name,
>>>> + struct clk_davinci_pll_data *pll_data) {
>>>> + struct clk_init_data init;
>>>> + struct clk_davinci_pll *pll;
>>>> + struct clk *clk;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!pll_data)
>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>> +
>>>> + pll = kzalloc(sizeof(*pll), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> + if (!pll)
>>>> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>> + init.name = name;
>>>> + init.ops = &clk_pll_ops;
>>>> + init.flags = pll_data->flags;
>>>> + init.parent_names = (parent_name ? &parent_name : NULL);
>>>> + init.num_parents = (parent_name ? 1 : 0);
>>>> +
>>>> + pll->pll_data = pll_data;
>>>> + pll->hw.init = &init;
>>>> +
>>>> + clk = clk_register(NULL, &pll->hw);
>>>> + if (IS_ERR(clk))
>>>> + kfree(pll);
>>>> +
>>>> + return clk;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> I guess there is an an "unregister" required as well which will free the
>>> pll memory
>>> allocated above and unregister the clock? Not sure if you would ever
>>> unregister a PLL,
>>> but providing this will probably help symmetry.
> Sekhar,
>
> clk_unregister() itself is a null statement in clk.c. Besides none of the clk
> drivers presently have implemented the unregister(). So I believe this is
> unnecessary.
I am ok with this.
> BTW, please review the v2 patch for the rest of the series. For the one you
> have already reviewed, it should be fine.
Okay. I see those now. BTW, this series also has a v2 in its 0/13. Are
there any differences between this and the other v2, or is that merely a
resend?
Thanks,
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/
