Thread (17 messages) flat view 17 messages, 3 authors, 2013-10-14

[PATCH 1/5] clk: tegra: Add support for PLLSS

From: Peter De Schrijver <hidden>
Date: 2013-10-10 10:59:23
Also in: linux-devicetree, linux-tegra, lkml

On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 12:39:16PM +0200, Thierry Reding wrote:
* PGP Signed by an unknown key

On Fri, Oct 04, 2013 at 12:12:40PM +0300, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
quoted
Signed-off-by: Peter De Schrijver <redacted>
This is missing a commit description.
quoted
diff --git a/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/tegra/clk-pll.c
[...]
quoted
+const struct clk_ops tegra_clk_pllss_ops = {
static?
While this could be static, I think conceptually it is exported. So I rather
leave it not static. Unless you expect name space problems.
quoted
+struct clk *tegra_clk_register_pllss(const char *name, const char *parent_name,
+				void __iomem *clk_base, unsigned long flags,
+				unsigned long fixed_rate,
+				struct tegra_clk_pll_params *pll_params,
+				struct tegra_clk_pll_freq_table *freq_table,
+				spinlock_t *lock)
+{
[...]
quoted
+	pll = _tegra_init_pll(clk_base, NULL, fixed_rate, pll_params,
+				pll_flags, freq_table, lock);
+
+	if (IS_ERR(pll))
I'd leave out the blank line separating the assignment of pll and the
check for validity. Grouping them together like that makes it
immediately clear that they belong together.
quoted
+		return ERR_CAST(pll);
+
+	val = pll_readl_base(pll);
+
+	if (val & (3 << 25)) {
Same here. Also 3 << 25 could probably be a symbolic constant, something
like PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_MASK perhaps?
quoted
+		WARN(1, "Unknown parent selected for %s: %d\n", name,
+			val >> 25);
Similarly, this should be something like:

		(val & PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_MASK) >> PLLSS_REF_SRC_SEL_SHIFT
quoted
+		kfree(pll);
+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+	}
+	_get_pll_mnp(pll, &cfg);
Nit: I'd put a blank line before this, to separate the block and the
function call. That is:

	}

	_get_pll_mnp(...);
quoted
+
+	if (cfg.n > 1) {
+		WARN(1, "%s should not be initialized\n", name);
+		kfree(pll);
+		return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
+	}
Is this really fatal? Can't we just configure the PLL from scratch?
At least in downstream it is. I'm assuming there is a good reason for this.

Cheers,

Peter.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help