On 05/10, Priit Laes wrote:

On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 15:39 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

On 05/09, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

Ok I applied this one to clk-next.

And I squashed this in to silence the following checker warning.

drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c:110:33: warning: Variable
length array is used.

---8<---

diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c

b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c
index f02e250e64ed..f8ff6c4a5633 100644

--- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c

@@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static int sun4i_a10_display_reset_xlate(struct

reset_controller_dev *rcdev,
?static void __init sun4i_a10_display_init(struct device_node *node,
?					??const struct
sun4i_a10_display_clk_data *data)
?{
-	const char *parents[data->parents];
+	const char *parents[4];

This change breaks at least de_[bf]e clocks which have 3 clock parents.

I just used the largest data->parents number, which was 4. How
does that break anything?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project