Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] clk: introduce the common clock framework

[Sascha Hauer]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:27:39AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
> > Assuming that some day OMAP code can be refactored to allow for lazy
> > (or at least initcall-based) registration of clocks then perhaps your
> > suggestion can take root.  Which leads me to this question: are there
> > any other platforms out there that require the level of expose to
> > struct clk present in this patchset?  OMAP does, for now, but if that
> > changes then I need to know if others require this as well.
> 
> Hi Mike
> 
> For kirkwood, i use static clk's for all but my root clock. I cannot
> statically know the rate of the root clock, so i have to determine it
> at boot time using heuristics, PCI ID, etc.
> 
> I used statics thinking it would be less code. No idea if it actually
> is, and there is nothing stopping me moving to creating the clocks
> after creating the root clock.

I'd say use the nonstatic ones. I think using the static initializers
will cause us much pain in the future. I've been through several rebases
on the i.MX clock rework and everytime I wish my sed foo would be
better. Now imagine what happens when it turns out that the internal
struct clk layout or the structs for the muxes/dividers/gates have to
be changed. This task is next to impossible when we have thousands of
clocks scattered around the tree.

Sascha


-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
--
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/