Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework

[Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:34:55AM +0400, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 2008/4/26, Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> >  > WTF? There are currently around 10 copies of clock code in the tree,
> >  > every one slightly different. If this can help us get rid of all that
> >  > crap, that's a GOOD THING, normative or not.
> >
> >
> > At the expense of people going off and inventing their own APIs because
> >  they find that the "normatived" clock API doesn't do what they need to?
> 
> Why? We do already have the API. And it's pretty normative. And the
> goal of my framework is to allow me and few other people not to
> reinvent the API for non-platform clocks.
> 
> >  That's what will happen if you try to force a framework on folk which
> >  they don't agree with.
> 
> If you don't want to use it, you are free to do so. E.g. you can use
> your own set of functions to implement GPIO api.

Now go back and read what Pavel wrote (which I responsed to - the
implication that your clock API _will_ _be_ forced upon _everyone_) and
you'll see that he has a completely different perspective to what you've
just said.  So rather than replying to my response, why not respond to
Pavel with your points you've made above?

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: