[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+Ln22HJmVwC1r+SuWG6RgFLCtsG6TPzQK_t8rUtB=SsZ0LyhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 23:52:39 +0900
From: Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>,
Sylwester Nawrocki <s.nawrocki@...sung.com>,
Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@...sung.com>,
"moderated list:SAMSUNG SOC CLOCK DRIVERS"
<linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linus.walleij@...aro.org" <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
Michael Turquette <mturquette@...libre.com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:COMMON CLK FRAMEWORK" <linux-clk@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/36] ARM: samsung: make S3C24XX_MISCCR access indirect
Hi Arnd,
2019年10月11日(金) 5:30 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>:
>
> The clk driver uses both a function call into an exported
> platform file and a direct register access to a hardcoded
> virtual address for accessing the MISCCR register, both
> become are a problem for a multiplatform kernel because
> of the header file dependency.
>
> Make this an indirect function call through platform data
> instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
> ---
> arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/common.c | 3 +++
> drivers/clk/samsung/clk-s3c2410-dclk.c | 10 ++++------
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/common.c b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/common.c
> index 3dc029c2d2cb..ebf6bde67816 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/common.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-s3c24xx/common.c
> @@ -667,5 +667,8 @@ struct platform_device s3c2410_device_dclk = {
> .id = 0,
> .num_resources = ARRAY_SIZE(s3c2410_dclk_resource),
> .resource = s3c2410_dclk_resource,
> + .dev = {
> + .platform_data = s3c2410_modify_misccr,
Thanks for the patch!
Just one minor nit: It doesn't look very nice to pass a function
pointer directly as platform data. Could we have a struct defined
instead - with a kerneldoc comment describing the function pointer
field?
Best regards,
Tomasz
Powered by blists - more mailing lists