On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:56:58AM +0100, Philipp Zabel wrote:

Am Donnerstag, den 26.02.2015, 09:02 +0000 schrieb Ben Dooks:

quoted

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 09:27:57AM -0800, Mike Turquette wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

From: Michael Turquette <redacted>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:11:01 -0800
Subject: [PATCH] clk: introduce clk_is_match

Some drivers compare struct clk pointers as a means of knowing
if the two pointers reference the same clock hardware. This behavior is
dubious (drivers must not dereference struct clk), but did not cause any
regressions until the per-user struct clk patch was merged. Now the test
for matching clk's will always fail with per-user struct clk's.

clk_is_match is introduced to fix the regression and prevent drivers
from comparing the pointers manually.

small observaton, clk_is_same() is linguistically nicer.

How about clk_equal() ?

That's good, the only issue that's not clear in any of these names is
that does this mean "the same clock", a "clock of the same rate" or a
"clock that is equivalent to in the rate and phase but not subject to
the same gate".


-- 
Ben Dooks, ben at fluff.org, http://www.fluff.org/ben/

Large Hadron Colada: A large Pina Colada that makes the universe disappear.