linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] clk: twl: add clock driver for TWL6032

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a9b646c7-2c02-8a69-a4c8-7e981a630eef@wanadoo.fr>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:15:54 +0200
From:   Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>
To:     Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com,
        robh+dt@...nel.org, krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org,
        conor+dt@...nel.org, lee@...nel.org, bcousson@...libre.com,
        tony@...mide.com, mturquette@...libre.com, sboyd@...nel.org,
        linux-input@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] clk: twl: add clock driver for TWL6032

Le 12/09/2023 à 00:13, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
> The TWL6032 has some clock outputs which are controlled like
> fixed-voltage regulators, in some drivers for these chips
> found in the wild, just the regulator api is abused for controlling
> them, so simply use something similar to the regulator functions.
> Due to a lack of hardware available for testing, leave out the
> TWL6030-specific part of those functions.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@...nade.info>
> ---
>   drivers/clk/Kconfig   |   9 ++
>   drivers/clk/Makefile  |   1 +
>   drivers/clk/clk-twl.c | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   3 files changed, 207 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
> 

...

> +static int twl_clks_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> +{
> +	struct clk_hw_onecell_data *clk_data;
> +	const struct twl_clks_data *hw_data;
> +
> +	struct twl_clock_info *cinfo;
> +	int ret;
> +	int i;
> +	int count;
> +
> +	hw_data = twl6032_clks;
> +	for (count = 0; hw_data[count].init.name; count++)
> +		;

Nit: does removing the /* sentinel */ and using 
ARRAY_SIZE(twl_clks_data) would make sense and be simpler?

CJ

> +
> +	clk_data = devm_kzalloc(&pdev->dev,
> +				struct_size(clk_data, hws, count),
> +				GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!clk_data)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	clk_data->num = count;
> +	cinfo = devm_kcalloc(&pdev->dev, count, sizeof(*cinfo), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!cinfo)
> +		return -ENOMEM;
> +
> +	for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
> +		cinfo[i].base = hw_data[i].base;
> +		cinfo[i].dev = &pdev->dev;
> +		cinfo[i].hw.init = &hw_data[i].init;
> +		ret = devm_clk_hw_register(&pdev->dev, &cinfo[i].hw);
> +		if (ret) {
> +			dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Fail to register clock %s, %d\n",
> +				hw_data[i].init.name, ret);
> +			return ret;
> +		}
> +		clk_data->hws[i] = &cinfo[i].hw;
> +	}
> +
> +	ret = devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider(&pdev->dev,
> +					  of_clk_hw_onecell_get, clk_data);
> +	if (ret < 0)
> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Fail to add clock driver, %d\n", ret);
> +
> +	return ret;

Nit: should there be a V4, some prefer return 0 to be more explicit.

> +}

...