Hi Leonard,

On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 9:26 AM Leonard Crestez [off-list ref] wrote:

On 6/7/19 10:05 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:

quoted

Quoting Leonard Crestez (2019-05-24 01:25:25)

quoted

quoted

@@ -3040,10 +3051,11 @@ static void clk_debug_create_one(struct clk_core *core, struct dentry *pdentry)
         debugfs_create_u32("clk_enable_count", 0444, root, &core->enable_count);
         debugfs_create_u32("clk_protect_count", 0444, root, &core->protect_count);
         debugfs_create_u32("clk_notifier_count", 0444, root, &core->notifier_count);
         debugfs_create_file("clk_duty_cycle", 0444, root, core,
                             &clk_duty_cycle_fops);
+       debugfs_create_file("clk_parent", 0444, root, core, &current_parent_fops);

Shouldn't we skip creation of this file if core->num_parents == 0? So
put this under the if condition below?

It's still useful to determine clk tree structure from debugfs fields,
otherwise you'd have to extract by parsing other files.

Would you hide clk_rate for fixed-rate? I'd rather have everything
available for uniformity, even if it's otherwise constant at runtime.

Unless I' missing something, there's a big difference here: all clocks
have a rate, but not all clocks have a parent.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

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