On 05/29/2015 03:02 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:

Stephen Warren [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On 05/18/2015 01:43 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:

quoted

quoted

+static struct clk *rpi_firmware_delayed_get_clk(struct 
of_phandle_args *clkspec, + void *_data)

quoted

+	rpi_clk = &rpi_clocks[clkspec->args[0]]; + +	firmware_node =
of_parse_phandle(of_node, "firmware", 0); +	if (!firmware_node)
{ +		dev_err(dev, "%s: Missing firmware node\n",
rpi_clk->name); +		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); +	} + +	/* Try a
no-op transaction to see if the driver is loaded yet. */ +	ret
= rpi_firmware_property_list(firmware_node, NULL, 0); +	if
(ret) +		return ERR_PTR(ret);

I would move all that into this driver's probe().

We can't move all this into the driver's probe, because this is
where we're returning -EPROBE_DEFER.  We could potentially do just
the phandle parse up front and allocate some memory to pass it and
our own device node to this function through the _data arg, but I
don't see much point.

Well, once the clock core correctly supports deferred probe, that can
be moved.

Aside from that, I think all your other replies to my replies in this
thread/series make sense.