On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Felipe Balbi <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 10:55:50AM -0700, Turquette, Mike wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Rajendra Nayak <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > parent name array is now expected to be const char *, make
>> > the relevent changes in the clk macros which define
>> > default clock types.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Rajendra Nayak <[email protected]>
>>
>> Good catch Rajendra. ?I'll pull it into clk-next.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mike
>>
>> > ---
>> > ?include/linux/clk-private.h | ? ?6 +++---
>> > ?1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-private.h b/include/linux/clk-private.h
>> > index eeae7a3..6ebec83 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/clk-private.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/clk-private.h
>> > @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ struct clk {
>> > ?#define DEFINE_CLK_FIXED_RATE(_name, _flags, _rate, ? ? ? ? ? ?\
>> > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?_fixed_rate_flags) ? ? ? ? ? ? ?\
>> > ? ? ? ?static struct clk _name; ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?\
>> > - ? ? ? static char *_name##_parent_names[] = {}; ? ? ? ? ? ? ? \
>> > + ? ? ? static const char *_name##_parent_names[] = {}; ? ? ? ? \
>
> does it make sense to have this as:
>
> static const char * const _name##_parent_names[] = { }; ??
Hi Felipe,
I don't think so. We're never going to reference the member of the
array anyways, so I think the current approach is fine for just
satisfying type qualifier-sameness.
Thanks,
Mike