From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751563AbcEIUUK (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2016 16:20:10 -0400 Received: from lists.s-osg.org ([54.187.51.154]:35133 "EHLO lists.s-osg.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750934AbcEIUUD (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 May 2016 16:20:03 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/22] clk: samsung: exynos5410: Provide fin_pll external fixed clock To: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Kukjin Kim , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Sylwester Nawrocki , Tomasz Figa , Michael Turquette , Stephen Boyd , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org References: <1462734367-5619-1-git-send-email-krzk@kernel.org> <1462734367-5619-5-git-send-email-krzk@kernel.org> From: Javier Martinez Canillas Message-ID: Date: Mon, 9 May 2016 16:19:46 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1462734367-5619-5-git-send-email-krzk@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello Krzysztof, On 05/08/2016 03:05 PM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > Just like clock driver for Exynos542x/5800, provide the fixed clock here > so the clock bindings and their consumers would be consistent and > similar. > > However a clock named "fin_pll" is already provided by generic > fixed-clock and it is both referenced in the clock driver (by name) and > in DT (by phandle). To make the transition smooth, first introduce the > new external fixed clock here under temporary, different name and switch > internal users to it. > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski > --- [snip] > > +/* Same as in Exynos5420 */ > +static const struct of_device_id ext_clk_match[] __initconst = { > + { .compatible = "samsung,exynos5420-oscclk", .data = (void *)0, }, Since using designated initializers, I was about to say that there is no need to explicitly set .data to 0 since omitted fields are implicitly initialized... > + { }, > +}; > + > /* register exynos5410 clocks */ > static void __init exynos5410_clk_init(struct device_node *np) > { > @@ -192,6 +204,10 @@ static void __init exynos5410_clk_init(struct device_node *np) > > ctx = samsung_clk_init(np, reg_base, CLK_NR_CLKS); > > + samsung_clk_of_register_fixed_ext(ctx, exynos5x_fixed_rate_ext_clks, > + ARRAY_SIZE(exynos5x_fixed_rate_ext_clks), > + ext_clk_match); > + ... but then I noticed that .data is used as exynos5x_fixed_rate_ext_clks array index in samsung_clk_of_register_fixed_ext(). So makes sense to set it explicitly to make the intent clear. Reviewed-by: Javier Martinez Canillas Best regards, -- Javier Martinez Canillas Open Source Group Samsung Research America