Quoting Javier Martinez Canillas (2015-03-30 09:08:40) > Hello Tomasz, > > On 03/30/2015 06:02 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > Hi Javier, > > > > 2015-03-31 0:53 GMT+09:00 Javier Martinez Canillas > > <javier.martinez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> The Samsung helpers functions to register clocks, add the clock instance > >> returned by the common clock framework to a lookup table that is used by > >> OF to lookup the clocks. > >> > >> But this table could also be useful to clock drivers if they need to get > >> a clock instance since the helper functions don't return them. > >> > >> The common clock framework __clk_lookup() function from the clk provider > >> API could be used by drivers as well. But it's more efficient to use the > >> Samsung specific lookup table that returns the clock instance in constant > >> time, than using the __clk_lookup() function that uses the clock name as > >> an index so it has a linear search time. > > > > Is this really something we should be concerned about? If so, maybe > > the generic look-up function should be rewritten to use something > > faster, such as tree or hash table? > > > > I don't performance is a big issue here. I just thought that since the > lookup table is already filled by the driver and the lookup function > is one line, we could use that instead to get the performance benefit. > > But I don't mind to drop this patch and use the generic lookup function > from the CCF API if that is preferred. Hello, I am not a fan of __clk_lookup and I don't like to see it used more and more outside of drivers/clk/clk.c. You mentioned that performance wasn't really the problem here. The real method for a driver to get a clock is with clk_get(). Any reason to not use that? Regards, Mike > > > Best regards, > > Tomasz > > > > Best regards, > Javier -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |