Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] clk: fixed-factor: Introduce *clk_hw_register_fixed_factor_parent_hw()

From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
To: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>,
	Marijn Suijten <marijn.suijten@somainline.org>
Cc: phone-devel@vger.kernel.org,
	~postmarketos/upstreaming@lists.sr.ht,
	AngeloGioacchino Del Regno 
	<angelogioacchino.delregno@somainline.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@somainline.org>,
	Martin Botka <martin.botka@somainline.org>,
	Jami Kettunen <jami.kettunen@somainline.org>,
	Michael Turquette <mturquette@baylibre.com>,
	Rob Clark <robdclark@gmail.com>,
	Abhinav Kumar <quic_abhinavk@quicinc.com>,
	Sean Paul <sean@poorly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
	Daniel Vetter <daniel@ffwll.ch>,
	Rajeev Nandan <quic_rajeevny@quicinc.com>,
	Vladimir Lypak <vladimir.lypak@gmail.com>,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Jonathan Marek <jonathan@marek.ca>,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
	freedreno@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] clk: fixed-factor: Introduce *clk_hw_register_fixed_factor_parent_hw()
Date: Thu, 09 Jun 2022 15:12:09 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220609221211.684C1C34114@smtp.kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAA8EJpomtbN0+ocD2pRbkYriUY4D9OnjgoFzL9qNHhPm3Uz5cQ@mail.gmail.com>

Quoting Dmitry Baryshkov (2022-06-02 03:20:19)
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2022 at 01:07, Marijn Suijten
> <marijn.suijten@somainline.org> wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c b/drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c
> > index 54942d758ee6..fabb98d0cdb2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-fixed-factor.c
> > @@ -78,7 +78,8 @@ static void devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_factor_release(struct device *dev, void *
> >
> >  static struct clk_hw *
> >  __clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
> > -               const char *name, const char *parent_name, int index,
> > +               const char *name, const char *parent_name,
> > +               const struct clk_hw *parent_hw, int index,
> >                 unsigned long flags, unsigned int mult, unsigned int div,
> >                 bool devm)
> >  {
> > @@ -108,7 +109,9 @@ __clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(struct device *dev, struct device_node *np,
> >         init.name = name;
> >         init.ops = &clk_fixed_factor_ops;
> >         init.flags = flags;
> > -       if (parent_name)
> > +       if (parent_hw)
> > +               init.parent_hws = &parent_hw;
> > +       else if (parent_name)
> >                 init.parent_names = &parent_name;
> 
> If you change the order of if clauses, you won't have to introduce
> unnecessary changes.

Indeed, please do that.

> 
> >         else
> >                 init.parent_data = &pdata;
> > @@ -148,17 +151,50 @@ struct clk_hw *devm_clk_hw_register_fixed_factor_index(struct device *dev,
> >                 const char *name, unsigned int index, unsigned long flags,
> >                 unsigned int mult, unsigned int div)
> >  {
> > -       return __clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(dev, NULL, name, NULL, index,
> > -                                             flags, mult, div, true);
> > +       return __clk_hw_register_fixed_factor(dev, NULL, name, NULL, NULL,
> > +                                             index, flags, mult, div, true);
> 
> Here (and several times later) you are inserting an argument and then
> moving arguments to the next line. My slight preference would be to
> just insert the arg (and maybe break the line if it gets too long) w/o
> touching the next lines.

I'd just add the argument at the end because when it is added in the
middle it makes the diff more difficult to read.