Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 20 Oct 2019 20:56:24 +0530
From:   Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     mturquette@baylibre.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        haitao.suo@bitmain.com, darren.tsao@bitmain.com,
        fisher.cheng@bitmain.com, alec.lin@bitmain.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] clk: Zero init clk_init_data in helpers
Message-ID: <20191020152624.GB12864@Mani-XPS-13-9360>
References: <20190916161447.32715-1-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20190916161447.32715-2-manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
 <20190917203957.9F75C2054F@mail.kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190917203957.9F75C2054F@mail.kernel.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 01:39:56PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Manivannan Sadhasivam (2019-09-16 09:14:40)
> > The clk_init_data struct needs to be initialized to zero for the new
> > parent_map implementation to work correctly. Otherwise, the member which
> > is available first will get processed.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>
> > ---
> >  drivers/clk/clk-composite.c  | 2 +-
> >  drivers/clk/clk-divider.c    | 2 +-
> >  drivers/clk/clk-fixed-rate.c | 2 +-
> >  drivers/clk/clk-gate.c       | 2 +-
> >  drivers/clk/clk-mux.c        | 2 +-
> >  5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c
> > index b06038b8f658..4d579f9d20f6 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-composite.c
> > @@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ struct clk_hw *clk_hw_register_composite(struct device *dev, const char *name,
> >                         unsigned long flags)
> >  {
> >         struct clk_hw *hw;
> > -       struct clk_init_data init;
> > +       struct clk_init_data init = { NULL };
> 
> I'd prefer { } because then we don't have to worry about ordering the
> struct to have a pointer vs. something else first.
>

okay. I thought having NULL would look more explicit!

Thanks,
Mani
 
> >         struct clk_composite *composite;
> >         struct clk_ops *clk_composite_ops;
> >         int ret;