On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 07:01:50PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > While I have no strong feelings on this series one way or the other, the > naming is a bit unfortunate. The clock device / clkdev naming is already > in use as an extension to the clock framework and is used by a wide > variety of embedded platforms already, with a pending patch to move it in > to the generic namespace (grepping for clkdev will give you an idea). The > idea behind that interface is similar in that it deals with the dynamic > creation and teardown of clocks, but is decoupled from timekeeping. > > It's also reasonable to assume that devices with dynamic clocks tracked > through clkdev will wish to also use this interface in the timekeeping > case, so it would be good to settle on something less ambiguous in > advance. Okay, I will take a look at that and try to come up with a better name for the dynamic clock code. Thanks, Richard -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
