Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754730AbaF3H5z (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 03:57:55 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:57418 "EHLO mail-ob0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754667AbaF3H5x (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jun 2014 03:57:53 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <53AB1CC1.4010907@codeaurora.org> <53ACB568.4000903@codeaurora.org> <20140627015354.32686.83046@quantum> Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2014 13:27:52 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] cpufreq: cpu0: Extend support beyond CPU0 From: Viresh Kumar To: Mike Turquette , Rob Herring , Grant Likely Cc: Stephen Boyd , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Shawn Guo , Lists linaro-kernel , "linux-pm@vger.kernel.org" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Arvind Chauhan , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Sachin Kamat , Thomas P Abraham , Nishanth Menon , Tomasz Figa , Mark Brown , Mark Rutland Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 27 June 2014 07:45, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 27 June 2014 07:23, Mike Turquette wrote: >>> but it isn't future-proof if/when the clock framework starts returning >>> dynamically allocated clock pointers for each clk_get() invocation. >>> Maybe we need a function in the common clock framework that tells us if >>> the clocks are the same either via DT or by taking two clock pointers? >> >> I looked through the patch briefly and did not see why we would need to >> do this. Any hint? > > We want to know which CPUs are sharing clock line, so that we can > fill affected-cpus field of cpufreq core. What about comparing "clocks" property in cpu DT nodes? @Rob/Grant: I tried looking for an existing routine to do that, but couldn't find it. And so wrote one. I am not good at DT stuff and so I do hope there would be few correction required here. Let me know if this can be added to drivers/of/base.c : +/** + * of_property_match - Match property in two nodes + * @np1, np2: Nodes to match + * @list_name: property to match + * + * Returns 1 on match, 0 on no match, and error for missing property. + */ +static int of_property_match(const struct device_node *np1, + const struct device_node *np2, + const char *list_name) +{ + const __be32 *list1, *list2, *list1_end; + int size1, size2; + phandle phandle1, phandle2; + + /* Retrieve the list property */ + list1 = of_get_property(np1, list_name, &size1); + if (!list1) + return -ENOENT; + + list2 = of_get_property(np2, list_name, &size2); + if (!list2) + return -ENOENT; + + if (size1 != size2) + return 0; + + list1_end = list1 + size1 / sizeof(*list1); + + /* Loop over the phandles */ + while (list1 < list1_end) { + phandle1 = be32_to_cpup(list1++); + phandle2 = be32_to_cpup(list2++); + + if (phandle1 != phandle2) + return 0; + } + + return 1; +} @Stephen: I have updated my tree with this change, in case you wanna try. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/