On 05/10, Priit Laes wrote:
On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 15:39 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 05/09, Stephen Boyd wrote:
Ok I applied this one to clk-next.
And I squashed this in to silence the following checker warning.
drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c:110:33: warning: Variable length array is used.
---8<--- diff --git a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c index f02e250e64ed..f8ff6c4a5633 100644 --- a/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c +++ b/drivers/clk/sunxi/clk-sun4i-display.c @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ static int sun4i_a10_display_reset_xlate(struct reset_controller_dev *rcdev, static void __init sun4i_a10_display_init(struct device_node *node, const struct sun4i_a10_display_clk_data *data) {
- const char *parents[data->parents];
- const char *parents[4];
This change breaks at least de_[bf]e clocks which have 3 clock parents.
I just used the largest data->parents number, which was 4. How does that break anything?