From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:37:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:38874 "EHLO mail.lst.de") by ftp.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S20022584AbXF1Ih1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 09:37:27 +0100 Received: from verein.lst.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lst.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-7.1) with ESMTP id l5S8bQNK023466 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:37:26 +0200 Received: (from hch@localhost) by verein.lst.de (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian-6.6) id l5S8bPQo023464; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:37:25 +0200 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:37:25 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Atsushi Nemoto Cc: hch@lst.de, vagabon.xyz@gmail.com, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, ralf@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] generic clk API implementation for MIPS Message-ID: <20070628083725.GA23394@lst.de> References: <20070627.013312.25479645.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <20070627153932.GA6016@lst.de> <20070628.112223.96686654.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070628.112223.96686654.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.39 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 15559 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: hch@lst.de Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 11:22:23AM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:39:32 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > This MIPS implementation is derived (and stripped) from the SH > > > implementation. > > > > Why is this not in architecture-independent code? > > Yes, this is architecture independent. If we could have consensus on > a generic (or least common) implementation, we can put it outside arch > directory. > > But I gave up for now ;) I will leave all implementation for platform > code. I really dislike duplicating thing over architectures. If you copy code from another architecture the first though should be 'could and should this be generic ?'. So please try to get this lifted to common code instead of duplicating it. > > --- > Atsushi Nemoto ---end quoted text---