On Aug 25, 2025 at 16:49:30 +0300, Maxim Kochetkov wrote: > 19.08.2025 10:33, Kamlesh Gurudasani wrote: > > Clock version 3.0 specified in ARM SCMI Platform design document > > v3.2, adds extended_config_val parameter in CLOCK_CONFIG_SET. > > > > The SCMI server with clock version 3.0 rejects the message if > > they don't have this field. > > > > Add support so that both SCMI server with clock version 2.0 and 3.0 > > can be handled. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kamlesh Gurudasani <[email protected]> > > --- > > drivers/clk/clk_scmi.c | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > > include/scmi_protocols.h | 6 ++++++ > > 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk_scmi.c b/drivers/clk/clk_scmi.c > > index 83ea7bb4286..b33cc05685d 100644 > > --- a/drivers/clk/clk_scmi.c > > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk_scmi.c > > @@ -131,19 +131,36 @@ static int scmi_clk_get_attibute(struct udevice *dev, > > int clkid, char **name, > > static int scmi_clk_gate(struct clk *clk, int enable) > > { > > - struct scmi_clk_state_in in = { > > - .clock_id = clk_get_id(clk), > > - .attributes = enable, > > - }; > > + struct scmi_clock_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(clk->dev); > > struct scmi_clock_priv *priv = dev_get_priv(clk->dev->parent); >
Could you elaborate? I think clk->dev should be fine, similar to other instances in the same file. Maybe I am missing something? Reviewed-by: Dhruva Gole <[email protected]> -- Best regards, Dhruva Gole Texas Instruments Incorporated
