On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:17:10AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > On Tue, March 20, 2012 2:40 am, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:54:55AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > >> > > I am using these functions and don't need a static array, I just call > > the functions with the desired parameters. > > Sure, then let's leave it in. Curious, where do you get the desired > parameters from? Is it static date in code or is it from DT? You somehow > probe it? It's not from DT. See this thread: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg165839.html > > > 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. > > I'm not exposing anything that you don't already pass from the platform > driver. Also, you realize that this is very similar to what you suggested > with clk_initializer right? If there is a strong push, we can make a copy > of these inside the struct clk, but for these few init fields I don't see > a point (see earlier email). The difference is that a struct clk_initializer is only used to initialize a clock and not actively used by the clock framework. But as you already mentioned using a copy inside the clock framework has the same effect. 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
