Re: Common clock framework API vs RT patchset\

[Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 03:06:18PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> However, due to the generally idiotic nature of Linux programmers, they've
> totally destroyed the reason for clk_enable() and clk_disable() existing.
> So, we now need a _third_ level of API to work around their idiotic nature,
> maybe clk_atomic_enable() and clk_atomic_disable(), which do what the
> original clk_enable() and clk_disable() do.
> 
> So, we end up needing three levels because Linux programmers are basically
> idiots.
> 
> And yes, if what you've found is correct, I think those who have created
> the crap have very much earned the prestigious title of being an "idiotic
> programmer".
> 
> I'm pissed at these idiotic programmers.

I'm even more pissed at the CCF "maintainers" for giving a shit about
the sanity of the stuff they are maintaining.

One reason for this mess is that clk related patches go often
unreviewed through SoC trees, which again is a problem of the
maintainers who just let that happen.

It's not enough to have an entry in MAINTAINERS along with a git tree
in which random patches get collected.

This 'shove crap in no matter what' mentality needs to stop if we
don't want to end up with a completely unmaintainable nightmare.

Thanks,

	tglx