[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87wpx04c4q.fsf@eliezer.anholt.net>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 11:04:05 -0700
From: Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>
To: Michael Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc: linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Lee Jones <lee@...nel.org>, linux-clk@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/8] clk: Add a Raspberry Pi-specific clock driver.
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...aro.org> writes:
> Hi Eric,
>
> Quoting Eric Anholt (2015-07-20 12:33:01)
>> +void __init rpi_firmware_init_clock_provider(struct device_node *node)
>> +{
>> + /* We delay construction of our struct clks until get time,
>> + * because we need to be able to return -EPROBE_DEFER if the
>> + * firmware driver isn't up yet. clk core doesn't support
>> + * re-probing on -EPROBE_DEFER, but callers of clk_get can.
>> + */
>> + of_clk_add_provider(node, rpi_firmware_delayed_get_clk, node);
>> +}
>> +
>> +CLK_OF_DECLARE(rpi_firmware_clocks, "raspberrypi,bcm2835-firmware-clocks",
>> + rpi_firmware_init_clock_provider);
>
> Do you require CLK_OF_DECLARE here? Could this be a platform driver
> instead?
I'm not actually sure. The common pattern seemed to be using
CLK_OF_DECLARE (130 files using it versus declaring a struct
platform_driver), and it seems to avoid a whole lot of boilerplate.
What would the advantage be?
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (819 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists