On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 05:03:31PM -0600, Grygorii Strashko wrote:
> +int cpts_register(struct cpts *cpts)
> {
> int err, i;
>
> - cpts->info = cpts_info;
> - spin_lock_init(&cpts->lock);
> -
> - cpts->cc.read = cpts_systim_read;
> - cpts->cc.mask = CLOCKSOURCE_MASK(32);
> - cpts->cc_mult = mult;
> - cpts->cc.mult = mult;
> - cpts->cc.shift = shift;
> -
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cpts->events);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&cpts->pool);
> for (i = 0; i < CPTS_MAX_EVENTS; i++)
> list_add(&cpts->pool_data[i].list, &cpts->pool);
>
> - cpts_clk_init(dev, cpts);
> + clk_enable(cpts->refclk);
> +
> cpts_write32(cpts, CPTS_EN, control);
> cpts_write32(cpts, TS_PEND_EN, int_enable);
>
> + cpts->cc.mult = cpts->cc_mult;
It is not clear why you set cc.mult in a different place than
cc.shift. That isn't logical, but maybe later patches make it
clear...
> timecounter_init(&cpts->tc, &cpts->cc, ktime_to_ns(ktime_get_real()));
>
> - INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&cpts->overflow_work, cpts_overflow_check);
> -
> - cpts->clock = ptp_clock_register(&cpts->info, dev);
> + cpts->clock = ptp_clock_register(&cpts->info, cpts->dev);
> if (IS_ERR(cpts->clock)) {
> err = PTR_ERR(cpts->clock);
> cpts->clock = NULL;
> @@ -392,26 +364,74 @@ int cpts_register(struct device *dev, struct cpts *cpts,
> return 0;
>
> err_ptp:
> - if (cpts->refclk)
> - cpts_clk_release(cpts);
> + clk_disable(cpts->refclk);
> return err;
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpts_register);
>
> void cpts_unregister(struct cpts *cpts)
> {
> - if (cpts->clock) {
> - ptp_clock_unregister(cpts->clock);
> - cancel_delayed_work_sync(&cpts->overflow_work);
> - }
> + if (WARN_ON(!cpts->clock))
> + return;
> +
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&cpts->overflow_work);
> +
> + ptp_clock_unregister(cpts->clock);
> + cpts->clock = NULL;
>
> cpts_write32(cpts, 0, int_enable);
> cpts_write32(cpts, 0, control);
>
> - if (cpts->refclk)
> - cpts_clk_release(cpts);
> + clk_disable(cpts->refclk);
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(cpts_unregister);
>
> +struct cpts *cpts_create(struct device *dev, void __iomem *regs,
> + u32 mult, u32 shift)
> +{
> + struct cpts *cpts;
> +
> + if (!regs || !dev)
> + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
There is no need for this test, as the caller will always pass valid
pointers. (This isn't a user space library!)
Thanks,
Richard
