From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765792AbYDYUp1 (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:45:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756668AbYDYUpM (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:45:12 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:59568 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755948AbYDYUpK (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:45:10 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:44:50 +0100 From: Russell King To: Dmitry Cc: Pavel Machek , Paul Walmsley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Haavard Skinnemoen , Paul Mundt , pHilipp Zabel , tony@atomide.com, David Brownell , hiroshi.DOYU@nokia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework Message-ID: <20080425204450.GC28893@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20080420082925.GA32739@doriath.ww600.siemens.net> <20080425103942.GC14903@elf.ucw.cz> <20080425202010.GA28893@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:34:55AM +0400, Dmitry wrote: > Hi, > > 2008/4/26, Russell King : > > 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: