From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: trblinux@gmail.com (Tushar Behera)
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 15:39:35 +0530
Subject: [PATCH 0/2] clk: exynos-audss: Adapt to exising clock framework
In-Reply-To: <53BFB39F.6040606@samsung.com>
References: <1405071475-31946-1-git-send-email-tushar.b@samsung.com>
 <53BFB39F.6040606@samsung.com>
Message-ID: <53BFB7DF.3010205@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 07/11/2014 03:21 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> Hi Tushar,
> 
> On 11.07.2014 11:37, Tushar Behera wrote:
>> The patchset is targetted as moving exising exynos-audss clock driver from being
>> a module driver. The driver is now registered through CLK_OF_DECLARE and is
>> inline with other Samsung clock drivers.
> 
> I'm afraid I have to NAK this series or at least the part converting the
> driver back to use CLK_OF_DECLARE().
> 

Considering the more prevalent usage of CLK_OF_DECLARE() in drivers/clk
led me into thinking it was the normal way for the clock drivers.
Keeping only one clock driver using a different approach looked odd to
me. Anyways, I don't have any other reason to pursue this case.

> We have deliberately made this driver a platform driver, because this is
> how drivers should be modeled in Linux kernel whenever possible.
> CLK_OF_DECLARE() should be only considered a hack to work around late
> initialization of driver model. Reverting this change without a good
> reason (and you haven't provided such) is just going backwards.
> 
> Rest of this series is actually quite nice, though, as reusing Samsung
> clock helpers reduces the line count significantly, so if you could
> rework this to keep this driver a platform driver then we could get
> something I could ack.
> 

Sure. There are still some valid cleanups even if we plan to retain the
platform driver infrastructure. I will split and repost.

> Best regards,
> Tomasz
> 


-- 
Tushar Behera