On 6/6/25 07:42, manikanda...@microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Eugen,
>
> On 05/06/25 12:05 pm, Eugen Hristev wrote:
>> EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the
>> content is safe
>>
>> On 6/3/25 08:05, Manikandan Muralidharan wrote:
>>> The clk_register function logs an error if parent_name is missing from the
>>> Device Tree.On the SAM9X7, the main_rc node is omitted to stay aligned with
>>> the Linux Device Tree.Remove the parent_name check in at91_clk_main_rc()
>>> to allow it to pass NULL when the parent is not specified.
>>
>> Hello Manikandan,
>>
>> Can you explain a bit? parent_name is a field inside a struct, not in
>> DT, so where is this parent_name taken from ?
>> If the main_rc is now gone, which clock fails without this patch ?
>>
>
> uclass_get_device_by_name() fails if the main_rc node is omitted from
> the Device Tree, resulting in an error message being printed to the
> console from clk_register(). This patch suppresses that message.
Which device is looked up ?
For which clock ?
>
>> Eugen
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Manikandan Muralidharan <manikanda...@microchip.com>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c b/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
>>> index 09daae97676..a5186f885f0 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/clk/at91/clk-main.c
>>> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ struct clk *at91_clk_main_rc(void __iomem *reg, const
>>> char *name,
>>> struct clk *clk;
>>> int ret;
>>>
>>> - if (!reg || !name || !parent_name)
>>> + if (!reg || !name)
>>> return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
>>>
>>> main_rc = kzalloc(sizeof(*main_rc), GFP_KERNEL);
>>
>
