Hi Paul, On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:21:17PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > If the common clock code is to go upstream now, it should be marked as > experimental. No, please don't do this. This effectively marks the architectures using the generic clock framework experimental. We can mark drivers as 'you have been warned', but marking an architecture as experimental is the wrong sign for both its users and people willing to adopt the framework. Also we get this: warning: (ARCH_MX1 && MACH_MX21 && ARCH_MX25 && MACH_MX27) selects COMMON_CLK which has unmet direct dependencies (EXPERIMENTAL) (and no, I don't want to support to clock frameworks in parallel) > This is because we know the API is not well-defined, and > that both the API and the underlying mechanics will almost certainly need > to change for non-trivial uses of the rate changing code (e.g., DVFS with > external I/O devices). Please leave DVFS out of the game. DVFS will use the clock framework for the F part and the regulator framework for the V part, but the clock framework should not get extended with DVFS features. The notifiers we currently have in the clock framework should give enough information for DVFS implementations. Even if they don't and we have to change something here this will have no influence on the architectures implementing their clock tree with the common clock framework. 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-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
