Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.34 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.34;
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 20:56:47 +0200
From:   Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
To:     Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc:     dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com, robh+dt@kernel.org,
        krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@linaro.org, conor+dt@kernel.org,
        lee@kernel.org, bcousson@baylibre.com, tony@atomide.com,
        mturquette@baylibre.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linux-input@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-omap@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-clk@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] clk: twl: add clock driver for TWL6032
Message-ID: <20230912205647.4be3b753@aktux>
In-Reply-To: <a9b646c7-2c02-8a69-a4c8-7e981a630eef@wanadoo.fr>
References: <20230911221346.1484543-1-andreas@kemnade.info>
        <20230911221346.1484543-5-andreas@kemnade.info>
        <a9b646c7-2c02-8a69-a4c8-7e981a630eef@wanadoo.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:15:54 +0200
Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> wrote:

> Le 12/09/2023 à 00:13, Andreas Kemnade a écrit :
> > The TWL6032 has some clock outputs which are controlled like
> > fixed-voltage regulators, in some drivers for these chips
> > found in the wild, just the regulator api is abused for controlling
> > them, so simply use something similar to the regulator functions.
> > Due to a lack of hardware available for testing, leave out the
> > TWL6030-specific part of those functions.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Kemnade <andreas@kemnade.info>
> > ---
> >   drivers/clk/Kconfig   |   9 ++
> >   drivers/clk/Makefile  |   1 +
> >   drivers/clk/clk-twl.c | 197 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   3 files changed, 207 insertions(+)
> >   create mode 100644 drivers/clk/clk-twl.c
> >   
> 
> ...
> 
> > +static int twl_clks_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct clk_hw_onecell_data *clk_data;
> > +	const struct twl_clks_data *hw_data;
> > +
> > +	struct twl_clock_info *cinfo;
> > +	int ret;
> > +	int i;
> > +	int count;
> > +
> > +	hw_data = twl6032_clks;
> > +	for (count = 0; hw_data[count].init.name; count++)
> > +		;  
> 
> Nit: does removing the /* sentinel */ and using 
> ARRAY_SIZE(twl_clks_data) would make sense and be simpler?
> 
well, I would like to have it prepared for different arrays
passed in some device data in the future, so I am choosing that
approach.

Regards,
Andreas