[PATCH 01/10] Add a common struct clk

[Russell King - ARM Linux]

On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:45:00PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 09:48:28PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > > From: Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr at canonical.com>
> > > > + * @get:	Called by the core clock code when a device driver acquires a
> > > > + *		clock via clk_get(). Optional.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * @put:	Called by the core clock code when a devices driver releases a
> > > > + *		clock via clk_put(). Optional.
> > > 
> > > These callbacks are completely pointless. There are only two non empty
> > > implementations in tree:
> > > 
> > > One does a try_module_get(clk->owner), which should be done in generic
> > > code. The other does special clock enabling magic which wants to go to
> > > clk->prepare().
> > 
> > I disagree.  Most clocks don't live in a module - there's only one
> > platform which does at present.  To force every clock to have an owner
> > field is rediculous.  We already know that the OMAP tree represents a
> 
> So we trade an owner field (which can be NULL) versus two function
> pointers in the clk_ops struct, which are of course subject to be
> abused for all kind of crap which does not belong there at all.

And the current __clk_get/__clk_put stuff has been abused to hell and
back hasn't it with just three implementations.  While I agree with your
sentiment, lets agree to address that _if_ it becomes a problem.  At
the moment, we have _enough_ problems to deal with, we don't need to
invent new ones which really don't matter at this stage.