Quoting Jerome Brunet (2018-12-04 11:55:10)
> On Tue, 2018-12-04 at 10:43 -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > Quoting Jerome Brunet (2018-12-04 08:34:03)
> > > clk_mux_val_to_index() is meant to be used by .get_parent(), which
> > > returns a u8, so when the value provided does not map to any valid index,
> > > it is not a good idea to return a negative error value.
> > >
> > > Instead, return num_parents which we know is an invalid index and let
> > > CCF deal with it.
> > >
> > > Fixes: 77deb66d262f ("clk: mux: add helper function for index/value
> > > translation")
> > > Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <jbru...@baylibre.com>
> > > ---
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/clk-provider.h b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > > index 60c51871b04b..fc20886ef069 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/clk-provider.h
> > > @@ -550,8 +550,8 @@ struct clk_hw *clk_hw_register_mux_table(struct device
> > > *dev, const char *name,
> > > void __iomem *reg, u8 shift, u32 mask,
> > > u8 clk_mux_flags, u32 *table, spinlock_t *lock);
> > >
> > > -int clk_mux_val_to_index(struct clk_hw *hw, u32 *table, unsigned int
> > > flags,
> > > - unsigned int val);
> > > +u8 clk_mux_val_to_index(struct clk_hw *hw, u32 *table, unsigned int
> > > flags,
> >
> > I wonder if we should just make this unsigned int? Does it hurt at all
> > to have it be a wider type even though it doesn't match the CCF decision
> > to make this a u8 for the parent index number space?
> >
>
> I also wondered about this but since the target is get_parent(), I just
> aligned the two.
>
> In the end, I don't really care, as you prefer. Just let me know if you would
> like a v2 with this change
>
Ok I may just make it unsigned int when applying then.
