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;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In-Reply-To: <20191227022652.GH1908628@ripper>
References: <20191125135910.679310-1-niklas.cassel@linaro.org> <20191125135910.679310-8-niklas.cassel@linaro.org> <20191219062339.DC0DE21582@mail.kernel.org> <20191220175616.3wdslb7hm773zb22@flawful.org> <20191224021636.CF47E20643@mail.kernel.org> <20191227022652.GH1908628@ripper>
From:   Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc:     Niklas Cassel <nks@flawful.org>, Andy Gross <agross@kernel.org>,
        Niklas Cassel <niklas.cassel@linaro.org>,
        linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, amit.kucheria@linaro.org,
        Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
To:     Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 7/7] clk: qcom: apcs-msm8916: use clk_parent_data to specify the parent
User-Agent: alot/0.8.1
Date:   Mon, 30 Dec 2019 10:04:42 -0800
Message-Id: <20191230180443.9E700206CB@mail.kernel.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Quoting Bjorn Andersson (2019-12-26 18:26:52)
> On Mon 23 Dec 18:16 PST 2019, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>=20
> > Quoting Niklas Cassel (2019-12-20 09:56:16)
> > > On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:23:39PM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > This is odd. The clks could be registered with of_clk_hw_register()=
 but
> > > > then we lose the device provider information. Maybe we should searc=
h up
> > > > one level to the parent node and if that has a DT node but the
> > > > clk controller device doesn't we should use that instead?
> > >=20
> > > Hello Stephen,
> > >=20
> > > Having this in the clk core is totally fine with me,
> > > since it solves my problem.
> > >=20
> > > Will you cook up a patch, or do you want me to do it?
> > >=20
> >=20
> > Can you try the patch I appended to my previous mail? I can write
> > something up more proper later this week.
> >=20
>=20
> Unfortunately we have clocks with no dev, so this fail as below. Adding
> a second check for dev !=3D NULL to your oneliner works fine though.
>=20
> I.e. this ugly hack works fine:
>   core->of_node =3D np ? : (dev ? dev_of_node(dev->parent) : NULL);
>=20

Ok, thanks for testing!