On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:54:55AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Tue, March 20, 2012 12:20 am, Shawn Guo wrote: ... > > 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. I share the save view on this, so would vote to remove these registration functions for basic clks completely. Regards, Shawn -- 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
