From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jk@ozlabs.org (Jeremy Kerr) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 14:26:09 +1100 Subject: [RFC,PATCH 1/7] arm: add a common struct clk In-Reply-To: <201001081220.14485.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> References: <1262907852.736281.78480196040.1.gpush@pororo> <201001081220.14485.jeremy.kerr@canonical.com> Message-ID: <201001081426.09754.jk@ozlabs.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Hartley, > I'm relucant to add anything to struct clock that isn't part of the kernel- > wide API. This may have been a little cryptic, I'm sorry. The reason for not adding a 'rate' member to the public clock API is that there would be now two methods for getting the rate of a clock: calling clk->get_rate or accessing clk->rate directly. The latter is not always guaranteed to work (perhaps there's a clock out there that needs an explicit HW query to get the rate), so we don't want generic drivers to be able to access this. Cheers, Jeremy