Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] clk: introduce the common clock framework

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2012, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > So the right way to deal with it is to have an array of valid names
> > with no holes and NULL pointers allowed and have a mapping from the
> > array index to the register value.
> 
> This is essentially what the .set_rate callback does.  It takes as
> input "u8 index" and peforms the hardware specific magic to select the
> correct parent clock.  This might be a register write using that exact
> same index, or it might be a single-bit register write using that
> index as the shift value, or it might translate that index into the
> data sent to an i2c device (where the address would be stored in
> struct clk_foo), etc etc.
> 
> We both agree that .parent_names must contain valid names and should
> not have holes.  What I don't understand is if you are saying that we
> should allow NULL ptrs as names; that seems contradictory but I want
> to make sure I'm reading you correctly.

I should have said: no holes and no NULL pointers, just an array of
valid names.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/