Re: [PATCH 4/5] clk: x86: Support RV architecture

[Agrawal, Akshu]

On 7/16/2020 6:33 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Akshu Agrawal (2020-07-12 17:59:52)
> > There is minor difference between previous family of SoC and
> > the current one. Which is the there is only 48Mh fixed clk.
> > There is no mux and no option to select another freq as there in previous.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Akshu Agrawal <akshu.agrawal@xxxxxxx>
> > ---
> I only see four out of five patches and there isn't a cover letter. I
> have no idea if I can apply this change or if you're expecting me to ack
> it. Please help make my life a little easier!

Numbering went wrong due to another unrelated patch.

Will send another with cover letter explaining the series.

> >   drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> >   1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c b/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c
> > index b252f0cf0628..a8aac71a3b65 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/x86/clk-fch.c
> > @@ -61,9 +78,17 @@ static int fch_clk_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >   static int fch_clk_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >   {
> >          int i;
> > +       struct fch_clk_data *fch_data;
> > +
> > +       fch_data = dev_get_platdata(&pdev->dev);
> >   
> > -       for (i = 0; i < ST_MAX_CLKS; i++)
> > -               clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]);
> > +       if (!fch_data->is_rv) {
> > +               for (i = 0; i < ST_MAX_CLKS; i++)
> > +                       clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]);
> > +       } else {
> > +               for (i = 0; i < RV_MAX_CLKS; i++)
> > +                       clk_hw_unregister(hws[i]);
> Can ST_MAX_CLKS or RV_MAX_CLKS be a local variable and then the loop
> consolidated.

Yes, making the change in next series.

Thanks,

Akshu