![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed 2008-03-26 17:04:41, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:52:03 +0300
> Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +struct clk {
> > + struct list_head node;
> > + struct clk *parent;
> > +
> > + const char *name;
> > + struct module *owner;
> > +
> > + int users;
> > + unsigned long rate;
> > + int delay;
> > +
> > + int (*can_get) (struct clk *, struct device *);
> > + int (*set_parent) (struct clk *, struct clk *);
> > + int (*enable) (struct clk *);
> > + void (*disable) (struct clk *);
> > + unsigned long (*getrate) (struct clk*);
> > + int (*setrate) (struct clk *, unsigned long);
> > + long (*roundrate) (struct clk *, unsigned long);
> > +
> > + void *priv;
> > +};
>
> Hmm...this is exactly twice as big as the struct I'm currently using,
> it doesn't contain all the fields I need, and it's undocumented.
Like unifying 15-or-so versions of clock framework that are out there?
> I have quite a few clocks, so the increased memory consumption is quite
> significant. What are the advantages of this?
How many clocks do you have?
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
| |||||||||
| Last update: 2008-03-28 20:13 [W:19.483 / U:0.950 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | ||||||||||