[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1170261646.9781.98.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 08:40:46 -0800
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: akpm@...l.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, johnstul@...ibm.com,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/23] clocksource: add clocksource_get_clock()
On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 12:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com> wrote:
>
> > One new API call clocksource_get_clock() which allows clocks to be
> > selected based on their name, or if the name is null the highest rated
> > clock is returned.
>
> this one (and the dependent APIs utilizations) look a step in the right
> direction to me, but they are not fully consequent and thus a bit
> confusing at the moment:
>
> - the current_clocksource is now something that is conceptually related
> to timekeeping - while it still resides in the clocksource domain.
Yes . The sysfs code gets moved in the next patch so it resides in the
timekeeping code ..
> - if we do this split there should be a separate sysfs hierarchy for
> timekeeping, separate of clocksource
A long time ago I changed "current_clocksource" to
"timekeeping_clocksource" which made sense at the time .. I got push
back on that from John, and I think maybe Thomas ..
> - you use struct sys_device clocksource_sys_device from clocksource.c in
> timekeeping.c, which is inconsistent as well.
>
This was on purpose , because I feel the sysfs organization benefits
when you have the clocksource users all in one place. Along with the
list of available clocksources .. I'm all ears if you have a better
suggestion ..
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists