On Tue, March 20, 2012 12:20 am, Shawn Guo wrote: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 08:38:26PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: >> This has a couple of advantages: >> * Completely hides struct clk from many clock platform drivers and >> static >> clock initialization code. >> * Simplifies the generic clk_register() function and allows adding >> optional >> fields in the future without modifying the function signature. >> * Allows for simpler static initialization of clocks on all platforms by >> removing the need for forward delcarations. >> * Halves the number of symbols added for each static clock >> initialization. >> >> Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > I agree this is a reasonable move. But while you simplify the interface > of clk_register(), why not making a further step to simplify the > following interfaces simple too? > > struct clk *clk_register_fixed_rate(struct device *dev, const char *name, > const char *parent_name, unsigned long flags, > unsigned long fixed_rate); > struct clk *clk_register_gate(struct device *dev, const char *name, > const char *parent_name, unsigned long flags, > void __iomem *reg, u8 bit_idx, > u8 clk_gate_flags, spinlock_t *lock); > struct clk *clk_register_divider(struct device *dev, const char *name, > const char *parent_name, unsigned long flags, > void __iomem *reg, u8 shift, u8 width, > u8 clk_divider_flags, spinlock_t *lock); > struct clk *clk_register_mux(struct device *dev, const char *name, > char **parent_names, u8 num_parents, unsigned long flags, > void __iomem *reg, u8 shift, u8 width, > u8 clk_mux_flags, spinlock_t *lock); If you simplify those functions further. They would just become clk_register(). I'm not sure I see a value in them in at that point or even in their current form. But if others see (I'm guessing since they acked or didn't nack it), I'm not going to ask to remove them. If everyone agrees that we should just remove them, I would be glad to. It's arguable that these functions for the common hardware types saves the need to deal with the kalloc in every platform driver. But it's not clear to me where they would get these parameters in the first place. Most likely form some sort of static array. At which point, it might as well be a static array of pointers to clk_gated.hw, clk_fixed_rate.hw, etc instead of a platform specific struct to hold these initializers. Btw, I need to fix the macros too. Or may be even delete them. Will see the overall response before I send out v2 to do that. > > Otherwise, > > Acked-by: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks -Saravana -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
