>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nori, Sekhar
>> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:16 AM
>> To: Karicheri, Muralidharan
>> Cc: mturque...@linaro.org; a...@arndb.de; a...@linux-foundation.org;
>> shawn....@linaro.org; rob.herr...@calxeda.com; linus.wall...@linaro.org;
>> viresh.li...@gmail.com; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Hilman, Kevin;
>> li...@arm.linux.org.uk; davinci-linux-open-sou...@linux.davincidsp.com;
>> linux-arm-
>> ker...@lists.infradead.org; linux-keyst...@list.ti.com - Linux developers
>> for Keystone
>> family of devices (May contain non-TIers); linux-c6x-...@linux-c6x.org;
>> Chemparathy,
>> Cyril
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] calk: davinci - add Main PLL clock driver
>>
>> 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?
>>
You are right. I did a re-send to add v2 in all of the patch subject. We are
fine.
>> Thanks,
>> Sekhar
