Re: [PATCH 0/5] Implement devm_of_clk_add_provider

From: Ricardo Ribalda Delgado <ricardo.ribalda@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>
Cc: Alan Tull <atull@kernel.org>,
	linux-clk@vger.kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Implement devm_of_clk_add_provider
Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 07:54:50 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPybu_3AGAYx2YKSuRvaNVBFSVkRVoOEa7oPaOAwuTDWK6drjQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <154111534593.88331.1129843003477644482@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com>

Hi Stephen
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 12:35 AM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Quoting Ricardo Ribalda Delgado (2018-11-01 07:40:39)
> > All Tull reported that there might be a great ammount of drivers with
> > imbalance on clk_add_provider. This is an issue for Device tree overlays
> > (and also a bug) https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/10/18/1103
> >
> > This patchset implement a devm_ function of of_clk_add_provider, and
> > fixes 3 drivers.
> >
> > Drivers like clk-gpio will be easily fixed with coccinelle if this set
> > is accepted. (I volunteer, I want to learn how to use it, just seen the
> > great presentations from Julia).
>
> We already have devm_of_clk_add_hw_provider(), so any instances of
> of_clk_add_provider() should be replaced with that, instead of
> propagating the usage of of_clk_add_provider() any further. I'll gladly
> apply patches to convert drivers from struct clk based APIs to struct
> clk_hw based APIs so that we can clearly split clk providers from clk
> consumers. So if you're interested in working on some coccinelle script
> for that it would be great!
>

Will look into that.
Can you take a look to 1/5 of this patchset? I believe that it is
valid even if we do not take 2-5.

Cheers

-- 
Ricardo Ribalda