On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:54:55AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > 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. I am using these functions and don't need a static array, I just call the functions with the desired parameters. Overall the clock framework was written in a way that we have to expose as little information about the internally used structs as necessary. It seems your patches are pulling in the opposite direction now. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | -- 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
