From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 09:50:13 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add a generic struct clk Message-Id: <20110710095013.GZ4812@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> List-Id: References: <1305876469.325655.313573683829.0.gpush@pororo> <1305876469.325655.313573683829.0.gpush@pororo> <20110710090927.GA23445@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> In-Reply-To: <20110710090927.GA23445@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 03:27:49PM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > > [This series was originally titled 'Add a common struct clk', but > > the goals have changed since that first set of patches. We're now aiming > > for a more complete generic clock infrastructure, rather than just > > abstracting struct clk] ... which will mean the platforms at the simpler end of the spectrum will ignore it because it'll be far too heavy weight for them. If we're going to do something generic with it, then we need something that _can_ scale from damned simple right up to OMAP-type complex. We don't want to start with something OMAP-type complex and have everyone use it even for just one or two (or even 30 simple enable/disable non-tree like) clocks. And those platforms should not have to have several K of unused code in their kernel because of it. Otherwise, we'll just end up going back to people trying to directly access clock mask registers from drivers. Note that because of the develtech.com fuckup, I don't have your patch series because I had to drop off the lists for about six hours to stop the deluge of emails. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755674Ab1GJJue (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:50:34 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:56451 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755458Ab1GJJu3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jul 2011 05:50:29 -0400 Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:50:13 +0100 From: Russell King - ARM Linux To: Mark Brown Cc: Jeremy Kerr , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Add a generic struct clk Message-ID: <20110710095013.GZ4812@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1305876469.325655.313573683829.0.gpush@pororo> <1305876469.325655.313573683829.0.gpush@pororo> <20110710090927.GA23445@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110710090927.GA23445@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 03:27:49PM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > > [This series was originally titled 'Add a common struct clk', but > > the goals have changed since that first set of patches. We're now aiming > > for a more complete generic clock infrastructure, rather than just > > abstracting struct clk] ... which will mean the platforms at the simpler end of the spectrum will ignore it because it'll be far too heavy weight for them. If we're going to do something generic with it, then we need something that _can_ scale from damned simple right up to OMAP-type complex. We don't want to start with something OMAP-type complex and have everyone use it even for just one or two (or even 30 simple enable/disable non-tree like) clocks. And those platforms should not have to have several K of unused code in their kernel because of it. Otherwise, we'll just end up going back to people trying to directly access clock mask registers from drivers. Note that because of the develtech.com fuckup, I don't have your patch series because I had to drop off the lists for about six hours to stop the deluge of emails. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2011 10:50:13 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 0/4] Add a generic struct clk In-Reply-To: <20110710090927.GA23445@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> References: <1305876469.325655.313573683829.0.gpush@pororo> <1305876469.325655.313573683829.0.gpush@pororo> <20110710090927.GA23445@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> Message-ID: <20110710095013.GZ4812@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 06:09:30PM +0900, Mark Brown wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 03:27:49PM +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > > [This series was originally titled 'Add a common struct clk', but > > the goals have changed since that first set of patches. We're now aiming > > for a more complete generic clock infrastructure, rather than just > > abstracting struct clk] ... which will mean the platforms at the simpler end of the spectrum will ignore it because it'll be far too heavy weight for them. If we're going to do something generic with it, then we need something that _can_ scale from damned simple right up to OMAP-type complex. We don't want to start with something OMAP-type complex and have everyone use it even for just one or two (or even 30 simple enable/disable non-tree like) clocks. And those platforms should not have to have several K of unused code in their kernel because of it. Otherwise, we'll just end up going back to people trying to directly access clock mask registers from drivers. Note that because of the develtech.com fuckup, I don't have your patch series because I had to drop off the lists for about six hours to stop the deluge of emails.