[PATCH v2 1/7] clk: Add a generic clock infrastructure

Turquette, Mike mturquette at ti.com
Fri Oct 14 18:14:19 UTC 2011


On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Mike Turquette <mturquette at ti.com> wrote:
> From: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr at canonical.com>
>  struct clk_hw_ops {
>        int             (*prepare)(struct clk_hw *);
>        void            (*unprepare)(struct clk_hw *);
>        int             (*enable)(struct clk_hw *);
>        void            (*disable)(struct clk_hw *);
>        unsigned long   (*recalc_rate)(struct clk_hw *);

In implementing recalc for divider clocks, I started to wonder, "why
not just pass struct clk *clk into the clk_hw_ops func ptrs?".

recalc is an obvious example whereby we need access to parent->rate.
The code usually ends up looking something like:

unsigned long omap_recalc_rate(struct clk_hw *hw)
{
        struct clk *parent;
        struct clk_hw_omap *oclk;

        parent = hw->clk->parent;
        oclk = to_clk_omap(hw);
        ...
}

That's a bit of a song and dance to have to do in almost every op, and
often these ops will need access to stuff like clk->rate also.   Is
there any opposition to just passing in struct clk?  e.g:

unsigned long omap_recalc_rate(struct clk *clk)
{
        struct clk *parent;
        struct clk_hw_omap *oclk;

        parent = clk->parent;
        oclk = to_clk_omap(clk->hw);
        ...
}

It is a small nitpick, but it affects the API for everybody so best to
get it right now before folks start migrating over to it.

Thanks,
Mike

>        int             (*set_rate)(struct clk_hw *,
>                                        unsigned long, unsigned long *);
>        long            (*round_rate)(struct clk_hw *, unsigned long);
>        int             (*set_parent)(struct clk_hw *, struct clk *);
>        struct clk *    (*get_parent)(struct clk_hw *);
>  };



More information about the linaro-dev mailing list