[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150220113753.GP5029@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:37:53 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
Preeti U Murthy <preeti@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
linaro-networking@...aro.org, Steven Miao <realmz6@...il.com>,
Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>,
Jonas Bonn <jonas@...thpole.se>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Guan Xuetao <gxt@...c.pku.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Add (missing) default case for switch blocks
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:36:59AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > But it does mean we need to be able to add values to the
> > enum.
>
> So I'm confused: if we are using proper callbacks (like my
> example outlined) , why is a 'mode enum' needed at all?
Ah, its because the enum is shared between two different use-cases. The
one is the clockevent driver for the clock_event_device::set_mode()
call, and one is the clockevent core call: clockevent_set_mode().
The previous patch changed the driver interface, but retained the
sharing of the enum across both interfaces.
Maybe we should break that enum into two; one for devices and one for
the core interface and avoid the problem that way.
--
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