[PATCH 4/7] spi: pl022: attempt to get sspclk by name
From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
Date: 2014-02-11 15:48:29
Also in:
linux-devicetree
On Tuesday 11 February 2014 15:04:38 Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 03:08:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:quoted
On Tuesday 11 February 2014, Mark Brown wrote:quoted
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 11:37:09AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:quoted
- pl022->clk = devm_clk_get(&adev->dev, NULL); + /* + * For compatibility with old DTBs and platform data, fall back to the + * first clock if there's not an explicitly named "sspclk" entry. + */ + pl022->clk = devm_clk_get(&adev->dev, "sspclk"); + if (IS_ERR(pl022->clk)) + pl022->clk = devm_clk_get(&adev->dev, NULL); +I'll just have a bit of a grumble here and point out that this sort of stuff always worries me with the convention of using nameless clocks - it causes hassle adding further clocks.I think the best solution for this is to continue with anonymous clocks rather than adding names after the fact. This could be done (for DT-only drivers) using the of_clk_get() interface that takes an index, or we could add a generic dev_clk_get_index() or similar interface that has the same behavior but also works for clkdev.Mixing devm_* and non-devm_* interfaces doesn't work. If you want to do that, devm_of_clk_get() would be a prerequisit.
Yes, good point. So if we want to do it, we would have to add a new function anyway, there is just the question whether it should be devm_of_clk_get() or devm_clk_get_index() if that can also work for non-DT devices. Do you think the latter actually makes sense in the clkdev interfaces? I'm not familiar enough with the code to tell how that would be implemented in a reasonable way. Arnd