Subject: [PATCH 01/13] calk: davinci - add Main PLL clock driver

From: [email-masked] (Sekhar Nori)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:45:47 +0530

On 10/10/2012 8:04 PM, Karicheri, Muralidharan wrote:

>>>> +struct clk *clk_register_davinci_pll(struct device *dev, const char *name,
>>>> +			const char *parent_name,
>>>> +			struct clk_davinci_pll_data *pll_data) {
>>>> +	struct clk_init_data init;
>>>> +	struct clk_davinci_pll *pll;
>>>> +	struct clk *clk;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (!pll_data)
>>>> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
>>>> +
>>>> +	pll = kzalloc(sizeof(*pll), GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> +	if (!pll)
>>>> +		return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
>>>> +	init.name = name;
>>>> +	init.ops = &clk_pll_ops;
>>>> +	init.flags = pll_data->flags;
>>>> +	init.parent_names = (parent_name ? &parent_name : NULL);
>>>> +	init.num_parents = (parent_name ? 1 : 0);
>>>> +
>>>> +	pll->pll_data	= pll_data;
>>>> +	pll->hw.init = &init;
>>>> +
>>>> +	clk = clk_register(NULL, &pll->hw);
>>>> +	if (IS_ERR(clk))
>>>> +		kfree(pll);
>>>> +
>>>> +	return clk;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> I guess there is an an "unregister" required as well which will free the pll memory
>>> allocated above and unregister the clock? Not sure if you would ever unregister a PLL,
>>> but providing this will probably help symmetry.
> Sekhar,
> 
> clk_unregister() itself is a null statement in clk.c. Besides none of the clk drivers presently have implemented the unregister(). So I believe this is unnecessary. 

I am ok with this.

> BTW, please review the v2 patch for the rest of the series. For the one you have already reviewed, it should be fine.

Okay. I see those now. BTW, this series also has a v2 in its 0/13. Are
there any differences between this and the other v2, or is that merely a
resend?

Thanks,
Sekhar