Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 21:47:37 +0200
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: mturquette@baylibre.com, lee.jones@linaro.org, xuwei5@hisilicon.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] clk: hi6220: Add the hi655x's pmic clock
Message-ID: <20170419194737.GB2523@mai>
References: <1491683412-12237-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
 <20170412150245.GK7065@codeaurora.org>
 <20170416205713.GW2078@mai>
 <20170419160005.GS7065@codeaurora.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20170419160005.GS7065@codeaurora.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2115
Lines: 59

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 09:00:05AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 04/16, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 08:02:45AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > On 04/08, Daniel Lezcano wrote:

[ ... ]

> > > > +	ret = clk_hw_register_clkdev(&hi655x_clk->clk_hw, clk_name, NULL);
> > > 
> > > Missed this last time. Do you use this clkdev lookup? The name is
> > > usually supposed to be based on what the device is expecting,
> > > instead of clk_name, and we would want some device name for the
> > > third argument here.
> > 
> > I'm not sure to get your comment. Are you saying the clk_name should be the
> > third argument?
> > 
> > 
> 
> Sorry, no. I meant that con_id is typically something like "core"
> or "ahb" or something like that, and dev_id is something like
> "a456002.pmic_device" or whatever dev_name(pmic_dev) would return for
> the consuming device. That way when we call clk_get(dev, "core")
> it will find the lookup with "core" and "a456002.pmic_device" to
> match up the clk lookup.
> 
> If anything, the clk_name should just go into the con_id for now,
> and then it will need to be a globally unique identifier for the
> clk. But that is going against how clkdev is supposed to be used.
> Hence the question if you even need to use it. If not, just don't
> add it. I can fix up v3 of this patch to put clk_name back at
> con_id if you like. No need to resend.

Ok, I'm not very used with the CCF, so perhaps clk_name is not needed at all. I
gave a try with the following combination:

 - con_id = NULL, dev_id = clk_name
 - con_id = clk_name, dev_id = NULL
 - con_id = NULL, dev_id = NULL

All worked.

And finally I removed the clk_hw_register_clkdev() call and it worked also.

So I'm not sure about this function.

Any idea ?

> -- 
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
> a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project

-- 

 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog