| Message ID | 20140909191205.19023.61366@quantum (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 09/09/2014 09:12 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: > 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.vizoso@collabora.com> >> Tested-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@free-electrons.com> >> Tested-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@sntech.de> >> Acked-by: Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@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. Makes sense now, will do that. > 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. Sounds good to me. > <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; > }; > > > Otherwise register_device_clock will blow up because we are assigning a > struct clk * to a struct clk_core *. Yeah, that one isn't there because the code has been removed in linux-next by this patch: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.acpi.devel/70205 > Do you mind testing with ARCH=x86_64 and allmodconfig? That will help > catch issues like this. Will do. I have been having trouble building in a finite amount of time as many configs as I would have liked, and for some reason I'm not getting 0day notifications. So sorry about that and I hope no more such issues will slip through. Regards, Tomeu > Regards, > Mike >
--- 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; };