On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 08:48:34PM +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 07:00:13PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > Eh, no, not really. It's the same as the clock API in this regard - if > > you want the struct device can be NULL and you can do a name based > > lookup only but then you have to pass the name around in platform data > > to support configurability. If the clock API implements some other > > solutions we'll probably follow them but I'm not aware of any. > That's not quite what we're talking about. With clkdev, you specify > device name itself, rather than address-of-struct-device. Using the > device name gives you independence from the initialization or creation > of the struct device (if indeed the struct device is created at all.) Hrm, that does seem like a neat approach for avoiding the problems with buses like I2C - I'll look into adding support for it, but at this point it's not likely to be in time for the next merge window. Thanks! -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
