* Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [120321 12:11]: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:38:58AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote: > > > >So it would be interesting to know more about why you (or anyone else) > > >perceive that the Kconfig changes would be harmful. > > > But the enthusiasm of the clock driver developers doesn't > > necessarily translate to users of the clock APIs (other driver > > devs). My worry with marking it as experimental in Kconfig and to a > > certain extent in the documentation is that it will discourage the > > driver devs from switching to the new APIs. If no one is using the > > new APIs, then platforms can't switch to the common clock framework > > These aren't new APIs, the clock API has been around since forever. > For driver authors working on anything that isn't platform specific the > issue has been that it's not implemented at all on the overwhelming > majority of architectures and those that do all have their own random > implementations with their own random quirks and with no ability for > anything except the platform to even try to do incredibly basic stuff > like register a new clock. > > Simply having something, anything, in place even if it's going to churn > is a massive step forward here for people working with clocks. Right, and now at least the people reading this thread are pretty aware of the yet unsolved issues with clock fwk api :) Regards, Tony -- 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
