On Wed, 2016-05-11 at 15:15 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:

On 05/10, Priit Laes wrote:

quoted

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?

If you look at the?sun4i_a10_display_init, it contains this block:

? ? ret = of_clk_parent_fill(node, parents, ARRAY_SIZE(parents));
????if (ret != ARRAY_SIZE(parents)) {
????????pr_err("%s: Could not retrieve the parents\n", clk_name);
????????goto unmap;
????}

of_clk_parent_fill returns 3 for de_be/de_fe nodes, and
ARRAY_SIZE(parents) is 4.

P?ikest,
Priit :)