Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework

[Russell King]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> > > WTF? There are currently around 10 copies of clock code in the tree,
> > > every one slightly different. If this can help us get rid of all that
> > > crap, that's a GOOD THING, normative or not.
> > 
> > At the expense of people going off and inventing their own APIs because
> > they find that the "normatived" clock API doesn't do what they need to?
> 
> Just now, everyone just cuts&copies clock.c. I do not think "new"
> situation can worse than that.

That's certainly not what I've seen going on.  Each implementation is
customised to the needs of the SoC it's running on - OMAP has a complex
implementation, whereas simpler SoCs have a more simple implementation.

That's an entirely reasonable state of affairs - those who need complexity
are able to have it, whereas those who don't need complexity don't have
to be lumbered with it.

It's a long way from a "cut and copy" situation you're trying to suggest
it is.  Certainly on ARM, your viewpoint does not hold.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/