linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:36:10 +0400
From:	Dmitry <dbaryshkov@...il.com>
To:	"Russell King" <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	"Pavel Machek" <pavel@....cz>, "Paul Walmsley" <paul@...an.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	"Haavard Skinnemoen" <haavard.skinnemoen@...el.com>,
	"Paul Mundt" <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
	"pHilipp Zabel" <philipp.zabel@...il.com>, tony@...mide.com,
	"David Brownell" <david-b@...bell.net>, hiroshi.DOYU@...ia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework

Hi,

2008/4/26 Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
>  > Hi!
>  >
>  > > > WTF? There are currently around 10 copies of clock code in the tree,
>  > > > every one slightly different. If this can help us get rid of all that
>  > > > crap, that's a GOOD THING, normative or not.
>  > >
>  > > At the expense of people going off and inventing their own APIs because
>  > > they find that the "normatived" clock API doesn't do what they need to?
>  >
>  > Just now, everyone just cuts&copies clock.c. I do not think "new"
>  > situation can worse than that.
>
>  That's certainly not what I've seen going on.  Each implementation is
>  customised to the needs of the SoC it's running on - OMAP has a complex
>  implementation, whereas simpler SoCs have a more simple implementation.
>
>  That's an entirely reasonable state of affairs - those who need complexity
>  are able to have it, whereas those who don't need complexity don't have
>  to be lumbered with it.
>
>  It's a long way from a "cut and copy" situation you're trying to suggest
>  it is.  Certainly on ARM, your viewpoint does not hold.

Actually it is "cut and copy". I once have examined all arm clock subsystems
and converted most of them (excluding OMAP, at91, maybe some others)
to the clocklib. There is more code duplication
that one would think. E.g. DaVinci clock.h contains a few flags
definitions, that
are totally unused by the code (most probably direct c&p from omap code).

I don't understand why do you give such strong oppression to these patches.
Simple systems (like sa1100) will be reduced just to few lines of code.
Mediocre (like pxa) will be again highly reduced in terms of size,
maintainability, etc.
And highly comliex (like omap) do already provide some type of framework
like clocklib.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry
--
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/