On 06/24/2013 06:57 PM, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote: > On 06/24/2013 07:47 PM, Peter Meerwald wrote: >> Hello, >> >>> Hm, I wonder where we should draw the line between what should be >>> implemented as a IIO driver and what should be implemented as a clk API >>> driver. This one looks like it actually belongs into the clk framework. >> >> several IIO drivers have overlap with other kernel subsystems > > Which is not a necessarily good. > >> >> I think the 'line' depends on the intended use/application of the driver, >> not so much on characteristics of the hardware; why do you think it >> belongs to clk? > > But the usecase might differ from board to board and that's when you get a > problem. One user wants a clk driver another a IIO driver. > >> >> the ds1077 is a small, separate chip which can generate a frequency; using >> IIO I can easily control that frequency from userspace >> >> clk seems to be targetted more at integrated clocksources that get >> activated automatically when needed by other components (maybe I am wrong) > > > I think there is a userspace consumer for the clk API in the making. Just to jump on the end of this conversation, sorry Peter but this one definitely looks to me like it belongs clk rather than IIO. If there wasn't a userspace API in the making, I'd suggest now was the time to propose one as you clearly have an application for one. Jonathan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
