From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1765449AbYDYVOX (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:14:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1759929AbYDYVOK (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:14:10 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:60088 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758628AbYDYVOH (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:14:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:13:43 +0100 From: Russell King To: Pavel Machek Cc: Paul Walmsley , Dmitry , 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: <20080425211343.GD28893@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20080420082925.GA32739@doriath.ww600.siemens.net> <20080425103942.GC14903@elf.ucw.cz> <20080425202010.GA28893@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20080425205151.GA6251@elf.ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080425205151.GA6251@elf.ucw.cz> 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 Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > 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? > > Just now, everyone just cuts&copies clock.c. I do not think "new" > situation can worse than that. That's certainly not what I've seen going on. Each implementation is customised to the needs of the SoC it's running on - OMAP has a complex implementation, whereas simpler SoCs have a more simple implementation. That's an entirely reasonable state of affairs - those who need complexity are able to have it, whereas those who don't need complexity don't have to be lumbered with it. It's a long way from a "cut and copy" situation you're trying to suggest it is. Certainly on ARM, your viewpoint does not hold. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: