Prashant Gaikwad <pgaik...@nvidia.com> wrote @ Wed, 6 Feb 2013 10:52:54 +0100:
> > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > index f0ac818..bb5d36a 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > @@ -346,6 +346,8 @@ struct clk_composite {
> > const struct clk_ops *mux_ops;
> > const struct clk_ops *div_ops;
> > const struct clk_ops *gate_ops;
> > +
> > + const struct clk_ops ops;
> > };
> >
> > struct clk *clk_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name,
>
> This will work, but there is no harm in allocating dynamically. What is
> preferred?
If we've already know that this "ops" is necessary per "struct
clk_composite" in advance, there's no point to allocate
"clk_composite" and "ops" separately.
--
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/
