Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: fix at91sam9x5 peripheral clock number

[Nicolas.Ferre]

On 19/02/2019 at 17:51, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> nck() looks at the last id in an array and unfortunately,
> at91sam9x35_periphck has a sentinel, hence the id is 0 and the calculated

Well, the logic for all other SoC clk files is to not have such a 
sentinel and deal differently with this type of array: why not modify 
this file to match with others?


> number of peripheral clocks is 1 instead of a maximum of 31.
> 
> Fixes: 1eabdc2f9dd8 ("clk: at91: add at91sam9x5 PMCs driver")
> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c | 3 +--
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
> index 2fe225a697df..d37e7ed9eb90 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/at91sam9x5.c
> @@ -144,8 +144,7 @@ static void __init at91sam9x5_pmc_setup(struct device_node *np,
>   		return;
>   
>   	at91sam9x5_pmc = pmc_data_allocate(PMC_MAIN + 1,
> -					   nck(at91sam9x5_systemck),
> -					   nck(at91sam9x35_periphck), 0);
> +					   nck(at91sam9x5_systemck), 31, 0);

I would prefer like it's done on other SoC clk files.

>   	if (!at91sam9x5_pmc)
>   		return;
>   
> 


-- 
Nicolas Ferre