[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1911031.mQ9ZbsnC1C@vostro.rjw.lan>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 03:11:32 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
linaro-networking@...aro.org, peterz@...radead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clockevents: Introduce mode specific callbacks
On Friday, February 13, 2015 08:54:56 AM Viresh Kumar wrote:
> It is not possible for the clockevents core to know which modes (other than
> those with a corresponding feature flag) are supported by a particular
> implementation. And drivers are expected to handle transition to all modes
> elegantly, as ->set_mode() would be issued for them unconditionally.
>
> Now, adding support for a new mode complicates things a bit if we want to use
> the legacy ->set_mode() callback. We need to closely review all clockevents
> drivers to see if they would break on addition of a new mode. And after such
> reviews, it is found that we have to do non-trivial changes to most of the
> drivers [1].
>
> Introduce mode-specific set_mode_*() callbacks, some of which the drivers may or
> may not implement. A missing callback would clearly convey the message that the
> corresponding mode isn't supported.
This is not going to fly AFAICS if you don't say what exacly you need it for.
Rafael
--
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