On 07/12/2021 20:00, Sam Protsenko wrote:

On Mon, 6 Dec 2021 at 17:32, David Virag [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

pll1417x is used in Exynos7885 SoC for top-level integer PLLs.
It is similar enough to pll0822x that practically the same code can
handle both. The difference that's to be noted is that when defining a
pl1417x PLL, the "con" parameter of the PLL macro should be set to the
CON1 register instead of CON3, like this:

    PLL(pll_1417x, CLK_FOUT_SHARED0_PLL, "fout_shared0_pll", "oscclk",
        PLL_LOCKTIME_PLL_SHARED0, PLL_CON0_PLL_SHARED0,
        NULL),

Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <redacted>
Signed-off-by: David Virag <redacted>
---
Changes in v2:
  - Nothing

Changes in v3:
  - Nothing

Changes in v4:
  - Added R-b tag by Krzysztof Kozlowski

 drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c | 1 +
 drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.h | 1 +
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
index 83d1b03647db..70cdc87f714e 100644
--- a/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c
+++ b/drivers/clk/samsung/clk-pll.c

@@ -1476,6 +1476,7 @@ static void __init _samsung_clk_register_pll(struct samsung_clk_provider *ctx,
                else
                        init.ops = &samsung_pll35xx_clk_ops;
                break;
+       case pll_1417x:

I wonder why this switch have a bunch of fall through cases, but none
marked with "fallthrough;" line, and both checkpatch and "make" turn
blind eye on that? Anyway, I guess it's ok as is, just an observation.

I think the fallthrough is needed for non-obvious cases where one case
has some code and misses a break. Something like:

switch () {
case a:
case b:
case c:
    foobar();
}

is obvious/explicit and does not need fallthrough.

Best regards,
Krzysztof

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