Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757275Ab1DWX1j (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:27:39 -0400 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:51196 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751230Ab1DWX1g (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Apr 2011 19:27:36 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] clk: add support for automatic parent handling From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Saravana Kannan , Paul McKenney , Uwe =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sascha Hauer , Stephen Boyd , Jeremy Kerr , kernel@pengutronix.de, linux-kernel , Ben Dooks , Linus Torvalds , Arnd Bergmann , Paul Mundt , linux-sh In-Reply-To: References: <1303308457-7501-1-git-send-email-u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de> <20110420185922.GD31131@pengutronix.de> <4DAFD5AA.9020404@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 09:26:21 +1000 Message-ID: <1303601181.2513.132.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1556 Lines: 37 On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 12:33 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Depends, there is a lot of sane hardware out there (not necessarily in > the ARM SoC world). We can do with a pointer if the need arises. > > > > optionally a set of common register accessor functions like I did > > > for the generic irq chip. > > > > Again, I don't see the point in having this in the common code. May be I'm > > missing something? > > See my RFC patch of a generic irq chip implementation and how much > duplicated five line inline functions they removed. > > > IMO, a better option instead of the base register and the offsets would be an > > option to have a priv_data pointer. I forgot the exact use case, but we > > thought that would have been helpful when we tried to port the msm clock > > driver in our tree on top of Jeremy's patches. > > It works either way, but we should try to comeup with a sensible > common base struct for sane hardware. Doesn't have to be in the base struct tho. I think a better approach is to keep the base struct reasonably API-only, and have an "implementation" subclass called something like simple_clk for example, that carries those few fields common to most MMIO based implementation and which can be created with existing "helper" code for the most common ones. Ben. -- 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/