On 03/16/2012 06:47 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote: > 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) > +1 For simple users at least, the api is perfectly adequate and it is not experimental (unless new means experimental). Rob >> 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 > -- 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
