linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] generic clk API implementation for MIPS

To: "Atsushi Nemoto" <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic clk API implementation for MIPS
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <vagabon.xyz@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:02:53 +0200
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ZAmPx8+FZMD+IODoy7509QYOqQfwTdITuLEwJnMDa7CQdjP0ULQ+smiJDJ1h8qy0yiui7r2av3bvWTP+vbwJOh2EfDdnMPl0t6xy0xU253YCO5D4Uwi3dCNzTsokb7S9gNHgdZQ8HQA24sE8AXo2AgKzCIvZ3HorEDpweN/MMxI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Z2QoXYbpg3DiMFn9zDdlLeUMwH/q6waZ22sl7bsnzxVTOo3cHYOi0UReHKpS5PnJjjbwIIcUZRhdHdVFFl0Kufv8r6OqiKfU3EBljm49NJfQ+ofNj+k9ZsGcFub2Wzd0s37MDF7gPkos0P6rnXB4WZLkFV+Sz+2Zluf2o3V4kfA=
In-reply-to: <20070627.013312.25479645.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <cda58cb80706260237r60a0b6b3obeba7daac7cf114a@mail.gmail.com> <20070626.233332.74753130.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <cda58cb80706260820y4db3eacnae4dff0101852d52@mail.gmail.com> <20070627.013312.25479645.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
On 6/26/07, Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> wrote:
I just think having centralized clock_list[] array might cause
maintainance issue.  Calling clk_register() in your platform's
arch_initcall (or so) seems enough for me.

It seems that clock configuration highly depends on the board, not the
arch. For example, a board can have only static clocks which won't be
unregistered later. In that case most of code provided by the patch is
useless.

So maybe the best thing is to let each board implements their own
generic clock API (exactly like the generic GPIO API you did
recently). Or make a default implementation (your patch) and allow
others boards to make their own implementation.

What do you think ?
--
              Franck

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>