lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/6] Clocklib: use correct name for 3,6MHz clock
    On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:01:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
    > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:24:11 +0400
    > Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> wrote:
    > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com>
    > > ---
    > > arch/arm/common/sa1111.c | 2 +-
    > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
    > >
    > > diff --git a/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c b/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c
    > > index eb06d0b..282a4d9 100644
    > > --- a/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c
    > > +++ b/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c
    > > @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ __sa1111_probe(struct device *me, struct resource *mem, int irq)
    > > if (!sachip)
    > > return -ENOMEM;
    > >
    > > - sachip->clk = clk_get(me, "GPIO27_CLK");
    > > + sachip->clk = clk_get(me, "3_6MHz_CLK");
    > > if (!sachip->clk) {
    > > ret = PTR_ERR(sachip->clk);
    > > goto err_free;
    >
    > Again, there's just not enough information for us (well: me) to be able to
    > evaluate this patch.
    >
    > For example, if the current name is "incorrect" then why shouldn't we fix
    > it in 2.6.25? 2.6.24? etc.

    I don't see any reason for this change. Except maybe someone wanted
    a nicer name to be exposed to userland. I don't see the point of
    exposing what's supposed to be a kernel _internal_ API to userland
    and then having an issue with those names being exported there.

    To put it another way: I don't ever want to have to think about
    userland issues when dealing with device clocking interfaces.

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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2008-04-08 01:09    [W:0.254 / U:124.176 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site