On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:43:42AM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
On 17/06/16 17:18, Thierry Reding wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 01:03:38PM +0100, Jon Hunter wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dpaux.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/tegra/dpaux.c
[...]
- if (of_device_is_compatible(pdev->dev.of_node,
"nvidia,tegra210-dpaux")) {dpaux->clk_sor = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "sor-safe");if (IS_ERR(dpaux->clk_sor)) {dev_err(&pdev->dev,"failed to get sor-safe clock: %ld\n",PTR_ERR(dpaux->clk_sor));return PTR_ERR(dpaux->clk_sor);}err = clk_prepare_enable(dpaux->clk_sor);if (err < 0) {dev_err(&pdev->dev,"failed to enable sor-safe clock: %d\n", err);return err;}- }
Please make this part of a struct tegra_dpaux_soc, so that we don't have to check the compatible string again here. This could look like:
struct tegra_dpaux_soc { bool needs_safe_clock; };
static const struct tegra_dpaux_soc tegra124_dpaux_soc = { .needs_safe_clock = false, };
static const struct tegra_dpaux_soc tegra210_dpaux_soc = { .needs_safe_clock = true, };
...
static const struct of_device_id tegra_dpaux_of_match[] = { { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra210-dpaux", .data = &tegra210_dpaux_soc }, { .compatible = "nvidia,tegra124-dpaux", .data = &tegra124_dpaux_soc }, { }, };
OK. I wonder if we should call it 'has_safe_clock' because this clock does not exist for tegra124 AFAICT. #bikeshed ;-)
has_safe_clock is fine with me, too.
Thierry