Re: [PATCH] clk: at91: fix at91sam9x5 peripheral clock number
From: Alexandre Belloni
Date: Wed Feb 20 2019 - 05:29:08 EST
On 20/02/2019 10:20:28+0000, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
> 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.
Well, that is not possible, what do you suggest?
> > if (!at91sam9x5_pmc)
> > return;
> Nicolas Ferre
Alexandre Belloni, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering