Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: fix at91sam9x5 peripheral clock number
From: <Nicolas.Ferre@microchip.com>
Date: 2019-02-20 11:18:46
Also in:
linux-clk, lkml
On 19/02/2019 at 17:51, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
nck() looks at the last id in an array and unfortunately,
at91sam9x35_periphck has a sentinel, hence the id is 0 and the calculated
number of peripheral clocks is 1 instead of a maximum of 31.
Fixes: 1eabdc2f9dd8 ("clk: at91: add at91sam9x5 PMCs driver")
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>Acked-by: Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@microchip.com> Cc: <redacted> # v4.20+ It would be nice to queue it as a fix the soonest, as it impacts 5.0 but not 4.20 due to a switch from one DT binding to another (read: a real regression)... But I know it's a bit late in the cycle... Regards, Nicolas
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
--- drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c | 3 +-- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c index 2fe225a697df..d37e7ed9eb90 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c@@ -144,8 +144,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9x5_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np, return; at91sam9x5_pmc = pmc_data_allocate(PMC_MAIN + 1, - nck(at91sam9x5_systemck), - nck(at91sam9x35_periphck), 0); + nck(at91sam9x5_systemck), 31, 0); if (!at91sam9x5_pmc) return;
-- Nicolas Ferre _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel