Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755174Ab3ILMuF (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:50:05 -0400 Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:41446 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754013Ab3ILMuD (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:50:03 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20130827082326.GE6152@lee--X1> References: <1370521041-32318-1-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <1370521041-32318-22-git-send-email-lee.jones@linaro.org> <20130821101448.GJ29850@lee--X1> <20130822092130.GB22023@lee--X1> <20130827082326.GE6152@lee--X1> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 14:50:02 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/33] clk: ux500: Add Device Tree support for the PRCC Kernel clock From: Linus Walleij To: Lee Jones Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Arnd Bergmann , Linus WALLEIJ , Mike Turquette , Ulf Hansson Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2201 Lines: 54 On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Lee Jones wrote: > On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Linus Walleij wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Lee Jones wrote: >> > 1. Duplicate each of the; clk_reg_prcmu_*(), clk_reg_prcc_pclk(), >> > clk_reg_prcc_kclk() calls into your proposed u8500_clk_init_dt(), >> > which, while keeping everything separate would be unrealistic. >> >> I think this is perfectly realistic. >> >> You're not going to duplicate each clk_register_clkdev(), >> which makes it way smaller than the original function, >> and since one of the function will be inside a >> >> #ifdef CONFIG_OF >> #endif >> >> After we switch the entire platform to DT-only it will be pretty >> obvious which big chunk of code that needs to go away, it's >> a clean cut. >> >> (Note: I know the #ifdef CONFIG_OF is not necessary anymore >> since we switched to multiplatform, but I intend that marker for >> humans, not machines.) > > This sounds gross. To duplicate; u8500_clk_init(), u8540_clk_init() > and u9540_clk_init() just for the sake of loading a few pointers into > an array for a small part of the development cycle sounds obscene. > > I genuinely think keeping the current patch in this series and then > removing the clk_register_clkdev() in the remove ATAG support series > is the best way to go. So what I am worrying about is not only the looks of the code and what is beautiful or not may be something of an opinion anway. What I worry about is leaving all the calls to clk_register_clkdev() in the DT boot path. Because that has the potential to hide a lot of bugs, as clk_get() from drivers that should've got named and probed randomly now will still find their clocks from their old device names, instead of using the <&ersand> clocks from the device tree. But if you still don't like this, let me cook a counter-patch so I can realized on my own how terribly wrong I am... Yours, Linus Walleij -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/