Hi Stephen,

Stephen Boyd [off-list ref] wrote on Mon, 03 Dec 2018 11:20:31
-0800:

Quoting Miquel Raynal (2018-11-30 02:20:52)

quoted

Hi Stephen,

Stephen Boyd [off-list ref] wrote on Fri, 30 Nov 2018 01:26:20
-0800:
  

quoted

Quoting Miquel Raynal (2018-11-23 01:11:32)  

quoted

Would you agree with me adding dummy functions in the #else section
like:

static inline void __clk_device_link(struct device *consumer, struct clk *clk)
{
       return;
}

static inline void __clk_device_unlink(struct clk *clk)
{
       return;
}

Do you want me to also declare these functions in the #if section
(with the external keyword) to balance the above declarations?    

Why can't we do the linking in __clk_get() and __clk_put()?
  

Because we need the caller's 'struct device' to make the link and
this is not available in __clk_get(). I tried to ad it as parameter but
I don't think it is possible to retrieve a 'struct device' from the
device name. The functions where this is problematic are:
* clk.c:__of_clk_get_from_provider()
* clkdev.c:clk_get_sys()

By the way in my new version I called the helpers:
* clk_{link,unlink}_hierarchy()
* clk_{link,unlink}_consumer()

I will send a new version with these helpers, but if you have anything
in mind to help me achieve the above request, I will welcome the idea.
  

We can do the linking in __clk_get() and __clk_put() if we poke into the
struct clk -> struct clk_core and bury the struct device into each
clk_core structure.

I meant the consumer device's structure. Yes, from a struct clk, the
first change in patch 1/2 let's us do clk->core->dev to get the clock
device. But for linking I need both the clock device and the consumer
device; and the latter will be missing in __clk_get().


Thanks,
Miquèl

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel