Re: [PATCH] clk: clean-up simple provider misuse of the consumer API

On jeu. 23 juil. 2026 at 10:33, Brian Masney <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 23, 2026 at 03:20:59PM +0200, Jerome Brunet wrote:
>> Clock provider should not be using the consumer interface.
>> In other words, a provider should not be dealing with struct clk.
>> 
>> This change targets occurrences for which the provider uses the
>> consumer interface and corresponding clk_hw interface exist:
>> * __clk_get_name() -> clk_hw_get_name()
>> * __clk_is_enabled() -> clk_hw_is_enabled()
>> * clk_get_rate() -> clk_hw_get_rate()
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Jerome Brunet <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> The change being very simple, I did not think it was necessary
>> to split it into multiple changes. If you prefer it to be split,
>> just let me know how.
>> ---
>>  drivers/clk/mvebu/clk-cpu.c            |  2 +-
>>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-hfpll.c           |  4 ++--
>>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-krait.c           |  2 +-
>>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg.c             |  4 ++--
>>  drivers/clk/qcom/clk-rcg2.c            |  2 +-
>>  drivers/clk/renesas/r9a06g032-clocks.c |  2 +-
>>  drivers/clk/rockchip/clk-pll.c         | 24 ++++++++++++------------
>>  drivers/clk/st/clkgen-pll.c            | 20 ++++++++++----------
>>  drivers/clk/tegra/clk-tegra210.c       |  2 +-
>>  drivers/clk/ti/clockdomain.c           |  2 +-
>>  10 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> This looks good to me however can you split this up by clk subsystem at
> the very least so that the various submaintainers can pick up these up?

Will do

>
> With that:
>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Masney <[email protected]>

-- 
Jerome