On 05/29/2015 03:02 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> Stephen Warren <swar...@wwwdotorg.org> writes:
>
>> On 05/18/2015 01:43 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
>>> +static struct clk *rpi_firmware_delayed_get_clk(struct
>>> of_phandle_args *clkspec, + void *_data)
>>
>>> + rpi_clk = &rpi_clocks[clkspec->args[0]]; + + firmware_node =
>>> of_parse_phandle(of_node, "firmware", 0); + if (!firmware_node)
>>> { + dev_err(dev, "%s: Missing firmware node\n",
>>> rpi_clk->name); + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); + } + + /* Try a
>>> no-op transaction to see if the driver is loaded yet. */ + ret
>>> = rpi_firmware_property_list(firmware_node, NULL, 0); + if
>>> (ret) + return ERR_PTR(ret);
>>
>> I would move all that into this driver's probe().
>
> We can't move all this into the driver's probe, because this is
> where we're returning -EPROBE_DEFER. We could potentially do just
> the phandle parse up front and allocate some memory to pass it and
> our own device node to this function through the _data arg, but I
> don't see much point.
Well, once the clock core correctly supports deferred probe, that can
be moved.
Aside from that, I think all your other replies to my replies in this
thread/series make sense.
--
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/
