[PATCH v2 1/7] clk: Add a generic clock infrastructure

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mike Turquette [off-list ref] wrote:

From: Jeremy Kerr <redacted>
?struct clk_hw_ops {
? ? ? ?int ? ? ? ? ? ? (*prepare)(struct clk_hw *);
? ? ? ?void ? ? ? ? ? ?(*unprepare)(struct clk_hw *);
? ? ? ?int ? ? ? ? ? ? (*enable)(struct clk_hw *);
? ? ? ?void ? ? ? ? ? ?(*disable)(struct clk_hw *);
? ? ? ?unsigned long ? (*recalc_rate)(struct clk_hw *);

In implementing recalc for divider clocks, I started to wonder, "why
not just pass struct clk *clk into the clk_hw_ops func ptrs?".

recalc is an obvious example whereby we need access to parent->rate.
The code usually ends up looking something like:

unsigned long omap_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw)
{
        struct clk *parent;
        struct clk_hw_omap *oclk;

        parent = hw->clk->parent;
        oclk = to_clk_omap(hw);
        ...
}

That's a bit of a song and dance to have to do in almost every op, and
often these ops will need access to stuff like clk->rate also.   Is
there any opposition to just passing in struct clk?  e.g:

unsigned long omap_recalc_rate(struct clk *clk)
{
        struct clk *parent;
        struct clk_hw_omap *oclk;

        parent = clk->parent;
        oclk = to_clk_omap(clk->hw);
        ...
}

It is a small nitpick, but it affects the API for everybody so best to
get it right now before folks start migrating over to it.

Thanks,
Mike

? ? ? ?int ? ? ? ? ? ? (*set_rate)(struct clk_hw *,
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?unsigned long, unsigned long *);
? ? ? ?long ? ? ? ? ? ?(*round_rate)(struct clk_hw *, unsigned long);
? ? ? ?int ? ? ? ? ? ? (*set_parent)(struct clk_hw *, struct clk *);
? ? ? ?struct clk * ? ?(*get_parent)(struct clk_hw *);
?};