From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753441Ab1IZLYF (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:24:05 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:57691 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752251Ab1IZLYB (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2011 07:24:01 -0400 Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 13:21:17 +0200 (CEST) From: Guennadi Liakhovetski X-X-Sender: lyakh@axis700.grange To: "Wu, Josh" cc: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, s.nawrocki@samsung.com, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-media@vger.kernel.org, "Ferre, Nicolas" Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 2/2] at91: add Atmel ISI and ov2640 support on sam9m10/sam9g45 board. In-Reply-To: <4C79549CB6F772498162A641D92D532802D2C262@penmb01.corp.atmel.com> Message-ID: References: <1316664661-11383-1-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <1316664661-11383-2-git-send-email-josh.wu@atmel.com> <20110924052609.GI29998@game.jcrosoft.org> <4E804440.7030709@atmel.com> <4C79549CB6F772498162A641D92D532802D2C262@penmb01.corp.atmel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:502eZrG6mIQhXEEj1qWpQ2nBTguaRnbGWXbe34qNgml Rt3Sgjfj1TA/bQCNzttfTzVWSf4NhhplajAPp/BvO8SXdwZQzE 2oBgv7zzm8eVFDMMYLc91OCQyJr+4gDCWjmRKgiTywR7gKfYWL a/1wkK3z95YMqOCmXjjSC4flZr2WrzEJsA9s9zwJKhO1sC/KEO 8u0Uy1HapdSfZTX2Y0pIUEznleWQnQl+xlaxrxMpu6NOK/TEl3 +F74SYCoHbXtFodAhrbhC/di8fIuEyaeeVgziu7fBBr2e8ERrC 2CZKnkAB4A0fZMAtIadQ+p6z1km3kk1xQdrvFjoZQh20Sm6VY7 YsQb/vXjpgMnTfZHS4OEdja0ZM0iZqRpWIt3EzXKR9JuHAsXOt yrkEy5ILvpIyQ== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Wu, Josh wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Guennadi wrote: > > > On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Josh Wu wrote: [snip] > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c > >> index e04c5fb..5e23d6d 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c > >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-at91/at91sam9g45.c > >> @@ -201,6 +201,7 @@ static struct clk *periph_clocks[] __initdata = { > >> // irq0 > >> }; > >> > >> +static struct clk pck1; > > > Hm, it really doesn't need any initialisation, not even for the .type > > field? .type=0 doesn't seem to be valid. > > This line is only a forward declaration. Since the real definition is behind the code we use it. > It defined in later lines: > > static struct clk pck1 = { > .name = "pck1", > .pmc_mask = AT91_PMC_PCK1, > .type = CLK_TYPE_PROGRAMMABLE, > .id = 1, > }; Ehem, yes, that's why I'm not very fond of forward declarations of structs... Without looking at the code - would it be possible to swap the order while still preserving clean source-code structure? Thanks Guennadi --- Guennadi Liakhovetski, Ph.D. Freelance Open-Source Software Developer http://www.open-technology.de/