[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FDABAF5.3090201@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 23:32:53 -0500
From: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>
To: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
CC: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
devicetree-discuss@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...retlab.ca>,
mturquette@...aro.org, sboyd@...eaurora.org,
skannan@...eaurora.org, s.hauer@...gutronix.de,
Sascha Hauer <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Mike Turquette <mturquette@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] clk: add DT clock binding support
On 06/14/2012 10:17 PM, Shawn Guo wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 09:41:48AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> +struct clk *of_clk_get_from_provider(struct of_phandle_args *clkspec)
>> +{
>> + struct of_clk_provider *provider;
>> + struct clk *clk = NULL;
>
> Both clk and clkdev treat NULL as a valid clock and return ERR_PTR for
> error case, while all the codes in this patch just return NULL for
> error and check (clk != NULL) for valid clock.
Because Grant hates ERR_PTR... :)
>
> Should we force the consistent behavior between DT and non-DT on this?
Yes, I agree and will change it.
Rob
>
>> +
>> + /* Check if we have such a provider in our array */
>> + mutex_lock(&of_clk_lock);
>> + list_for_each_entry(provider, &of_clk_providers, link) {
>> + if (provider->node == clkspec->np)
>> + clk = provider->get(clkspec, provider->data);
>> + if (clk)
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + mutex_unlock(&of_clk_lock);
>> +
>> + return clk;
>> +}
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists