On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 11:16:05AM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 03 July 2012, Mark Brown wrote: > > No idea, I'm just taking the existing default header and making it more > > generally available. > I prefer Stephen's version because that maintains the type checking. I agree, I've already made the change locally. > However, that is not a controversial point at all IMHO. The question > that we need to decide on is whether we want automatic "generic-y" > statements in Kbuild.asm. Well, it does seem to defeat a large part of the point of having generic headers if they're not there by default - it means that if you add a header you need to go round every single architecture adding the header explicitly which is cumbersome and annoying, especially with the less actively maintained architectures. On the other hand if you do things without adding a generic header then people whine about not using the generic header mechanism... > I would definitely prefer being able to just write > generic-y += clkdev.h I agree but I don't see this as something that should block having the facility. Or if it does I guess I'll need to try to either fix clkdev to use the arch include optionally or go round all the architectures either of which is going to be needlessly painful. > Maybe Michal Marek or someone on the kbuild mailing list can help > out with a solution for that. We could do that incrementally... The reason I'm doing this is that the lack of a widely available clock API is a considerable pain point for a lot of the stuff I work on and this is the major blocker to just enabling the default implementation on architectures that don't support it already which would be a big step forwards.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
