[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130608092133.GI18614@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 10:21:33 +0100
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"Hennerich, Michael" <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>
Subject: Re: Arm sub architectures missing clk_round_rate()
On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 09:57:17AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> At least one Arm subarch (pxa) does no provide an implementation of this
> function. As far as I can see there is no way for a driver wishing to use
> it to detect it's absence. This is marked in clk.h as being optional
> for 'Machine Class support'. Obvious solutions to this are:
>
> 1) It is effectively only usable by platform specific drivers as no
> more generic driver can know it is available. Perhaps even a stub that
> returns an appropriate error would be acceptable.
>
> 2) It is not as optional as the header implies and should always be implemented
> if the rest of the clk framework is.
>
> 3) There should be some means of detecting its absense so that drivers can
> be dependant on its presene.
>
> Which is the correct one?
The right answer is (2) now that we have things like the clk framework and
soo many users.
--
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