On 11 March 2015 at 05:43, Mike Turquette <mturquette@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Sorry, I am not who you asked for advice but I will chime in anyways ;-) Always welcome :) > I really hate this intermediate frequency stuff in cpufreq. As we I am starting to :) > Furthermore any intermediate-frequency property in a Devicetree binding > would suffer the same fate. Trying to neatly encode some weird sequence > into this generic thing will get very ugly very fast. Hmm.. > For proof please look at clk-divider.c, clk-gate.c, clk-mux.c or > clk-composite.c and you'll see the result of the slow accumulation of > lots and lots of hardware corner cases onto generic code. If I had known > then what I know now I would not have created those generic clock types > and I would have tried for an abstraction layer between generic stuff > (e.g. find the best divider) and the real hardware stuff (write to the > register). Instead I kept all of it together and now things are super > ugly. Yeah. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
