[PATCH 0/2] Common struct clk implementation, v14

[Paul McKenney]

2011/4/20 Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de>

> On Wed, 20 Apr 2011, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > I declare this to be stable, so assuming people are OK with it, you can
> > use that as a base to convert your platforms.
>
> You declare that stable? Interesting.
>
> > There is a 2nd branch on that repository that also contains my RFC patch
> > just sent to this list in case you want to test it.
>
> Which is utter crap as I pointed out a few minutes ago.
>
> Also that clk thing is neither stable nor complete. It's just designed
> wrong.
>
> As long as it does not handle nested clocks proper and by default w/o
> your tasteless add ons, it's just moving the status quo of ARM into a
> common infrastructure file.
>
> Yes, that's probably better than not having common infrastructure at
> all, but trying to build up conversions on that lot would be a
> complete waste of time and resources. Simply because you need to
> convert the already converted stuff another time.
>

Hey, guys,

Thomas's words might seem a bit harsh, but he really does understand what
Linus's reaction will be.  And Thomas's words are much less harsh than the
ones that Linus would likely choose.  I wish we had a good example of a
common-clock structure elsewhere in the kernel, but the fact is that ARM has
a much wider variety of SoCs than pretty much any other architecture.  So we
might as well get something put in place to start with that will have a
decent chance of standing the test of time (and therefore being something
that Linus is likely to approve of).

Could you please take a look at what Thomas suggested (
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-April/049013.html)
and give it a try?

                                                       Thanx, Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110420/a84b1a97/attachment-0001.html>