On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:10:26PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > This redefines a function that already is declared in <linux/clk.h> and > > > defined in drivers/clk/clkdev.c. Why? > > > > Because he doesn't support clkdev? clkdev support is optional. > > I don't think it is a good idea not to support clkdev for new targets. Ralf > what do you think about it? My gut feeling is that if there's a suitable generic infrastructure we should use it, so use clkdev for new targets. I was just wondering if there's a good reason to doing things the way he did. Ralf
