From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:36:06 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 01/40] clkdev: add clkname to struct clk_lookup In-Reply-To: <4F87F188.60603@st.com> References: <20120411094704.GY24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4F879E9D.2090502@st.com> <4F87B443.6090405@st.com> <20120413085901.GG3168@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> <4F87ED74.8020308@st.com> <20120413091712.GE27730@b20223-02.ap.freescale.net> <20120413092615.GH24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4F87F188.60603@st.com> Message-ID: <20120413093606.GI24211@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 02:57:36PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 4/13/2012 2:56 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > What's wrong with the struct clk returned from clk_register() - why > > not do this as a two-step process? > > Code duplication on all platforms for creating these lookups. > > > Especially as you may want to > > associate a single clock with more than one clk_lookup. > > Can still be done, as we are still getting clk pointer back. You're not convincing me that you're approach here is correct, and I really doubt that this will have any effect at saving lines of code - your argument list is soo long that you'll have to wrap it onto several lines. So I don't buy the 'code duplication' argument here - I think that's a red herring, and I think you're better off making interfaces which are simpler to use.