Quoting Mike Turquette (2014-09-09 12:12:05)
> Quoting Tomeu Vizoso (2014-09-09 07:04:57)
> > In preparation to change the public API to return a per-user clk structure,
> > remove any usage of this public API from the clock implementations.
> >
> > The reason for having this in a separate commit from the one that introduces
> > the implementation of the new functions is to separate the changes generated
> > with Coccinelle from the rest, and keep the patches' size reasonable.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tomeu Vizoso <tomeu.viz...@collabora.com>
> > Tested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>
> > Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <he...@sntech.de>
> > Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezil...@free-electrons.com>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > v10: * Add a few more files to be converted
> > * Re-generate the patch on top of the latest changes
>
> Hi Tomeu,
>
> Generating this on top of linux-next is a no-go. I can't apply it to my
> tree. The best thing is to generate it on top of -rc4, and that is what
> I will merge.
>
> Running the script against linux-next is still very useful and lets us
> patch up the stuff that is not going through the clk tree. E.g. the LPSS
> driver is already in mainline, so just running the semantic patch
> against -rc4 is sufficient for it. However a patch like Shawn's "ARM:
> imx: add an exclusive gate clock type" came in through the i.MX tree and
> we'll need to patch it after the fact.
>
> The best way to do that is for me to host a branch with just your
> changes in it that everyone can pull in as a dependency with the same
> commit ids.
>
> <snip>
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> > index bcbdbd2..f4c6ccf 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> > @@ -11,7 +11,6 @@
> > */
> >
> > #include <linux/acpi.h>
> > -#include <linux/clk.h>
> > #include <linux/clkdev.h>
> > #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> > #include <linux/err.h>
> > @@ -78,7 +77,7 @@ struct lpss_private_data {
> > void __iomem *mmio_base;
> > resource_size_t mmio_size;
> > unsigned int fixed_clk_rate;
> > - struct clk *clk;
> > + struct clk_core *clk;
> > const struct lpss_device_desc *dev_desc;
> > u32 prv_reg_ctx[LPSS_PRV_REG_COUNT];
> > };
> > @@ -229,7 +228,7 @@ static int register_device_clock(struct acpi_device
> > *adev,
> > {
> > const struct lpss_device_desc *dev_desc = pdata->dev_desc;
> > const char *devname = dev_name(&adev->dev);
> > - struct clk *clk = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > + struct clk_core *clk = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > struct lpss_clk_data *clk_data;
> > const char *parent, *clk_name;
> > void __iomem *prv_base;
>
> I think the following hunk is missing from your change:
>
> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_lpss.c
> @@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ ACPI_MODULE_NAME("acpi_lpss");
> struct lpss_shared_clock {
> const char *name;
> unsigned long rate;
> - struct clk *clk;
> + struct clk_core *clk;
> };
Looks like this hunk is missing as well:
diff --git a/include/linux/platform_data/clk-lpss.h
b/include/linux/platform_data/clk-lpss.h
index 2390199..3c3237c 100644
--- a/include/linux/platform_data/clk-lpss.h
+++ b/include/linux/platform_data/clk-lpss.h
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@
struct lpss_clk_data {
const char *name;
- struct clk *clk;
+ struct clk_core *clk;
};
Without that change the following code will explode:
static int register_device_clock(struct acpi_device *adev,
struct lpss_private_data *pdata)
{
const struct lpss_device_desc *dev_desc = pdata->dev_desc;
struct lpss_shared_clock *shared_clock = dev_desc->shared_clock;
const char *devname = dev_name(&adev->dev);
struct clk_core *clk = ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
struct lpss_clk_data *clk_data;
const char *parent, *clk_name;
void __iomem *prv_base;
if (!lpss_clk_dev)
lpt_register_clock_device();
clk_data = platform_get_drvdata(lpss_clk_dev);
if (!clk_data)
return -ENODEV;
if (dev_desc->clkdev_name) {
clk_register_clkdev(clk_data->clk, dev_desc->clkdev_name,
devname);
return 0;
}
I'm starting to get nervous about this Coccinelle script... Seems like a
lot of things are slipping through.
Regards,
Mike
>
>
> Otherwise register_device_clock will blow up because we are assigning a
> struct clk * to a struct clk_core *.
>
> Do you mind testing with ARCH=x86_64 and allmodconfig? That will help
> catch issues like this.
>
> Regards,
> Mike
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
