Hi Sylwester, On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 06:44:52PM +0200, Sylwester Nawrocki wrote: > Hi Sakari, > > On 10/09/2017 04:18 PM, Sakari Ailus wrote: > > Sure, how about this at the end of the current commit message: > > > > If there is a need to support removing the clock provider in the future, > > this should be implemented in the clock framework instead, not in V4L2. > > I find it a little bit misleading, there is already support for removing > the clock provider, only any clock references for consumers became then > stale. Perhaps: > > "If there is a need to support the clock provider unregister/register > cycle while keeping the clock references in the consumers in the future, > this should be implemented in the clock framework instead, not in V4L2." Yes, I'll use this in v16. > > ? That said, I doubt this issue is going to be entirely solved solely > in the clock framework, as it is a more general problem of resource > dependencies. It could be related to other resources, like regulator > or GPIO. It has been discussed for a long time now and it will likely > take time until a general solution is available. I don't think we can have entirely generic solutions to this as the API through which the resources are accessed is specific to the resources (regulator, GPIO, clock). Or the generic solution would be used by the frameworks behind those APIs. But as Laurent mentioned, we don't have this case with other than clock currently. -- Regards, Sakari Ailus e-mail: sakari.ailus@xxxxxx
