From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:32:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from h9.dl5rb.org.uk ([81.2.74.9]:34635 "EHLO h5.dl5rb.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by eddie.linux-mips.org with ESMTP id S1903660Ab2FULcl (ORCPT ); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:32:41 +0200 Received: from h5.dl5rb.org.uk (h5.dl5rb.org.uk [127.0.0.1]) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5LBWa7q012798; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:32:36 +0100 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by h5.dl5rb.org.uk (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q5LBWYB4012797; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:32:34 +0100 Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 12:32:34 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Florian Fainelli Cc: Sergei Shtylyov , Kelvin Cheung , linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, wuzhangjin@gmail.com, zhzhl555@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 2/4] MIPS: Add board support for Loongson1B Message-ID: <20120621113234.GB7175@linux-mips.org> References: <1339757617-2187-1-git-send-email-keguang.zhang@gmail.com> <20120620192551.GC29446@linux-mips.org> <4FE225F3.4080806@mvista.com> <1463808.aB2kcWCEuH@bender> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1463808.aB2kcWCEuH@bender> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-archive-position: 33755 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: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: linux-mips X-List-ID: linux-mips List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: linux-mips Return-Path: On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:10:26PM +0200, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > This redefines a function that already is declared in and > > > defined in drivers/clk/clkdev.c. Why? > > > > Because he doesn't support clkdev? clkdev support is optional. > > I don't think it is a good idea not to support clkdev for new targets. Ralf > what do you think about it? My gut feeling is that if there's a suitable generic infrastructure we should use it, so use clkdev for new targets. I was just wondering if there's a good reason to doing things the way he did. Ralf