Re: [PATCH v2] clk: npcm7xx: get fixed clocks from DT

From: Stephen Boyd
Date: Thu Dec 06 2018 - 13:49:42 EST


Quoting Tali Perry (2018-12-06 00:44:31)
> diff --git a/drivers/clk/clk-npcm7xx.c b/drivers/clk/clk-npcm7xx.c
> index 27a86b7a34db..4bd2e40997d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/clk/clk-npcm7xx.c
> +++ b/drivers/clk/clk-npcm7xx.c
> @@ -8,13 +8,19 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/module.h>
> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> #include <linux/clk-provider.h>
> +#include <linux/device.h>
> #include <linux/io.h>
> #include <linux/kernel.h>
> #include <linux/of.h>
> +#include <linux/of_device.h>
> +#include <linux/of_platform.h>
> #include <linux/of_address.h>
> +#include <linux/platform_device.h>
> #include <linux/slab.h>
> #include <linux/err.h>
> +#include <linux/rational.h>

Why?

> #include <linux/bitfield.h>
>
> #include <dt-bindings/clock/nuvoton,npcm7xx-clock.h>
> @@ -568,6 +575,31 @@ static void __init npcm7xx_clk_init(struct device_node *clk_np)
> for (i = 0; i < NPCM7XX_NUM_CLOCKS; i++)
> npcm7xx_clk_data->hws[i] = ERR_PTR(-EPROBE_DEFER);
>
> + /* Read fixed clocks. These 3 clocks must be defined in DT */
> + clk = of_clk_get_by_name(clk_np, NPCM7XX_CLK_S_REFCLK);
> + if (IS_ERR(clk)) {
> + pr_err("failed to find external REFCLK on device tree, err=%ld\n",
> + PTR_ERR(clk));
> + clk_put(clk);
> + goto npcm7xx_init_fail_no_clk_on_dt;
> + }
> +
> + clk = of_clk_get_by_name(clk_np, NPCM7XX_CLK_S_SYSBYPCK);
> + if (IS_ERR(clk)) {
> + pr_err("failed to find external SYSBYPCK on device tree, err=%ld\n",
> + PTR_ERR(clk));
> + clk_put(clk);
> + goto npcm7xx_init_fail_no_clk_on_dt;
> + }
> +
> + clk = of_clk_get_by_name(clk_np, NPCM7XX_CLK_S_MCBYPCK);
> + if (IS_ERR(clk)) {
> + pr_err("failed to find external MCBYPCK on device tree, err=%ld\n",
> + PTR_ERR(clk));
> + clk_put(clk);
> + goto npcm7xx_init_fail_no_clk_on_dt;
> + }

Now this looks like a DT validator in the kernel. DT folks are working
on a schema and validator, which should be able to make sure that the
DTS file has the proper set of clks specified for this drivers' node so
that we don't need to check in the kernel.

So it looks like nothing needs to change here?