From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753448Ab3H0IXh (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 04:23:37 -0400 Received: from mail-ee0-f41.google.com ([74.125.83.41]:46408 "EHLO mail-ee0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753023Ab3H0IXc (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Aug 2013 04:23:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:23:26 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: Linus Walleij Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Linus WALLEIJ , Srinidhi KASAGAR , Mike Turquette , Ulf Hansson Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/33] clk: ux500: Add Device Tree support for the PRCC Kernel clock Message-ID: <20130827082326.GE6152@lee--X1> References: <1370521041-32318-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1370521041-32318-22-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20130821101448.GJ29850@lee--X1> <20130822092130.GB22023@lee--X1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > >> I really do not like the approach of uglifying something and then > >> beautifying it later... I prefer each step in isolation to be good > >> looking, or you will be confused when traversing the history. > > > > So then we have a few options, some more realistic than others. > > > > 1. Duplicate each of the; clk_reg_prcmu_*(), clk_reg_prcc_pclk(), > > clk_reg_prcc_kclk() calls into your proposed u8500_clk_init_dt(), > > which, while keeping everything separate would be unrealistic. > > I think this is perfectly realistic. > > You're not going to duplicate each clk_register_clkdev(), > which makes it way smaller than the original function, > and since one of the function will be inside a > > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > #endif > > After we switch the entire platform to DT-only it will be pretty > obvious which big chunk of code that needs to go away, it's > a clean cut. > > (Note: I know the #ifdef CONFIG_OF is not necessary anymore > since we switched to multiplatform, but I intend that marker for > humans, not machines.) This sounds gross. To duplicate; u8500_clk_init(), u8540_clk_init() and u9540_clk_init() just for the sake of loading a few pointers into an array for a small part of the development cycle sounds obscene. I genuinely think keeping the current patch in this series and then removing the clk_register_clkdev() in the remove ATAG support series is the best way to go. If you think I'm wrong then I'll so as you ask however. Just pass me the sick bucket. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lee.jones@linaro.org (Lee Jones) Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 09:23:26 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 21/33] clk: ux500: Add Device Tree support for the PRCC Kernel clock In-Reply-To: References: <1370521041-32318-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1370521041-32318-22-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20130821101448.GJ29850@lee--X1> <20130822092130.GB22023@lee--X1> Message-ID: <20130827082326.GE6152@lee--X1> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > > >> I really do not like the approach of uglifying something and then > >> beautifying it later... I prefer each step in isolation to be good > >> looking, or you will be confused when traversing the history. > > > > So then we have a few options, some more realistic than others. > > > > 1. Duplicate each of the; clk_reg_prcmu_*(), clk_reg_prcc_pclk(), > > clk_reg_prcc_kclk() calls into your proposed u8500_clk_init_dt(), > > which, while keeping everything separate would be unrealistic. > > I think this is perfectly realistic. > > You're not going to duplicate each clk_register_clkdev(), > which makes it way smaller than the original function, > and since one of the function will be inside a > > #ifdef CONFIG_OF > #endif > > After we switch the entire platform to DT-only it will be pretty > obvious which big chunk of code that needs to go away, it's > a clean cut. > > (Note: I know the #ifdef CONFIG_OF is not necessary anymore > since we switched to multiplatform, but I intend that marker for > humans, not machines.) This sounds gross. To duplicate; u8500_clk_init(), u8540_clk_init() and u9540_clk_init() just for the sake of loading a few pointers into an array for a small part of the development cycle sounds obscene. I genuinely think keeping the current patch in this series and then removing the clk_register_clkdev() in the remove ATAG support series is the best way to go. If you think I'm wrong then I'll so as you ask however. Just pass me the sick bucket. -- Lee Jones Linaro ST-Ericsson Landing Team Lead Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog