On 01/07, Archit Taneja wrote:
> +
> +static struct clk *pll_14nm_postdiv_register(struct dsi_pll_14nm *pll_14nm,
> + const char *name,
> + const char *parent_name,
> + unsigned long flags,
> + u8 shift)
> +{
> + struct dsi_pll_14nm_postdiv *pll_postdiv;
> + struct device *dev = &pll_14nm->pdev->dev;
> + struct clk_init_data postdiv_init = {
> + .parent_names = (const char *[]) { parent_name },
> + .num_parents = 1,
> + .name = name,
> + .flags = flags,
> + .ops = &clk_ops_dsi_pll_14nm_postdiv,
> + };
> +
> + pll_postdiv = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*pll_postdiv), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!pll_postdiv)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> +
> + pll_postdiv->pll = pll_14nm;
> + pll_postdiv->shift = shift;
> + /* both N1 and N2 postdividers are 4 bits wide */
> + pll_postdiv->width = 4;
> + /* range of each divider is from 1 to 15 */
> + pll_postdiv->flags = CLK_DIVIDER_ONE_BASED;
> + pll_postdiv->hw.init = &postdiv_init;
> +
> + return clk_register(dev, &pll_postdiv->hw);
Can you use clk_hw_register() and the variants instead? Same for
the clk_provider calls in this patch.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
