RE: [PATCH] clk: imx: pll14xx: initialize flags to 0

From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
To: Marc Gonzalez <marc.w.gonzalez@free.fr>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@kernel.org>,
	linux-clk <linux-clk@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] clk: imx: pll14xx: initialize flags to 0
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 10:04:21 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <AM0PR04MB4481010CA9D3672F55208092887E0@AM0PR04MB4481.eurprd04.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5fc2dfd6-ae59-6af8-0423-ddc8e0b4f78f@free.fr>

> Subject: Re: [PATCH] clk: imx: pll14xx: initialize flags to 0
> 
> On 05/11/2019 08:21, Peng Fan wrote:
> 
> > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@nxp.com>
> >
> > init.flags is initialized with value from pll_clk->flags, however
> > imx_1443x_pll and imx_1416x_pll are not static structure, so flags
> > might be random value. So let's initialize flags as 0 now.
> 
> This is incorrect. When using an initializer list, struct members not explicitly
> specified are initialized to 0.
> 
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https:%2F%2Fport70.net
> %2F~nsz%2Fc%2Fc11%2Fn1570.html%236.7.9p19&amp;data=02%7C01%7C
> peng.fan%40nxp.com%7Ca94356700d9c4f61614a08d761d53936%7C686ea1
> d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C637085440717516996&amp;s
> data=cUQmXzdbaK6oZqWtJc3Vnh0FJBD1v1b%2FJqb4lRPis5w%3D&amp;rese
> rved=0
> 
> > The initialization shall occur in initializer list order, each
> > initializer provided for a particular subobject overriding any
> > previously listed initializer for the same subobject; all subobjects
> > that are not initialized explicitly shall be initialized implicitly
> > the same as objects that have static storage duration.
> (You might point out that the kernel is compiled with -std=gnu89 not C11, but
> GCC's semantics are the same.)
> 
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgcc.gn
> u.org%2Fonlinedocs%2Fgcc%2FDesignated-Inits.html%23Designated-Inits&a
> mp;data=02%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7Ca94356700d9c4f61614a08d
> 761d53936%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C0%7C1%7C637085
> 440717516996&amp;sdata=nsiLE%2B91lfZ15zJtvg8D8nJbIpKJkPyaoKBtmMoa
> AwQ%3D&amp;reserved=0

Thanks for the info.

My understanding is wrong.
The patch was initially try to address what [1] did.
In [1], static was discarded and moved to a common place.
So I thought flags should be initialized as 0.

> 
> > diff --git a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pll14xx.c
> > b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pll14xx.c index fa76e04251c4..a7f1c1abe664
> > 100644
> > --- a/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pll14xx.c
> > +++ b/drivers/clk/imx/clk-pll14xx.c
> > @@ -65,12 +65,14 @@ struct imx_pll14xx_clk imx_1443x_pll = {
> >  	.type = PLL_1443X,
> >  	.rate_table = imx_pll1443x_tbl,
> >  	.rate_count = ARRAY_SIZE(imx_pll1443x_tbl),
> > +	.flags = 0,
> >  };
> 
> What tree is this patch based on?

https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shawnguo/linux.git/log/?h=for-next

[1]
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/shawnguo/linux.git/commit/?h=for-next&id=43cdaa1567ad3931fbde438853947d45238cc040

Thanks,
Peng.

> 
> https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Felixir.b
> ootlin.com%2Flinux%2Fv5.4-rc1%2Fsource%2Fdrivers%2Fclk%2Fimx%2Fclk-p
> ll14xx.c%23L65&amp;data=02%7C01%7Cpeng.fan%40nxp.com%7Ca9435670
> 0d9c4f61614a08d761d53936%7C686ea1d3bc2b4c6fa92cd99c5c301635%7C
> 0%7C1%7C637085440717516996&amp;sdata=fPeaCJQKsdWZKVG431KNL8v
> hqT0y2TUMMntf1C66YNg%3D&amp;reserved=0
> 
> Regards.