Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 3/4] clk: imx: Add support for i.MX8MN clock driver

From: Stephen Boyd <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:34:56 -0700

Quoting Anson Huang (2019-06-10 19:06:22)
> > >
> > > Sorry, I am still a little confused, all the clock
> > > register(clk_register()) are via each different clock types like
> > > imx_clk_gate4/imx_clk_pll14xx, if using clk_hw_register, means we need
> > > to re-write the clock driver using different clk register method, that
> > > will make the driver completely different from i.mx8mq/i.mx8mm, they
> > > are actually same series of SoC as i.mx8mn, it will introduce many
> > confusion, is my understanding correct? And is it OK to just keep what it is
> > and make them all aligned?
> > >
> > 
> > Ok, the problem I'm trying to point out is that clk registrations need to be
> > undone, i.e. clk_unregister() needs to be called, when the driver fails to
> > probe. devm_*() is one way to do this, but if you have other ways of
> > removing all the registered clks then that works too. Makes sense?
> 
> Yes, it makes sense. Do you think it is OK to add an imx_unregister_clocks() API, then
> call it in every place of returning failure in .probe function? If yes, I will add it and also
> fix it in i.MX8MQ driver which uses platform driver model but does NOT handle this case. 
> 
>         base = devm_platform_ioremap_resource(pdev, 0);
> -       if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(base)))
> -               return PTR_ERR(base);
> +       if (WARN_ON(IS_ERR(base))) {
> +               ret = PTR_ERR(base);
> +               goto unregister_clks;
> +       }
> 
>                 pr_err("failed to register clks for i.MX8MN\n");
> -               return -EINVAL;
> +               goto unregister_clks;
>         }
> 
>         return 0;
> +
> +unregister_clks:
> +       imx_unregister_clocks(clks, ARRAY_SIZE(clks));
> +
> +       return ret;
> 
> +void imx_unregister_clocks(struct clk *clks[], unsigned int count)
> +{
> +       unsigned i;
> +
> +       for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> +               clk_unregister(clks[i]);
> +}
> +
> 

Yes, looks better.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel