[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 2/3] clk: introduce the common clock framework
    On 03/19/2012 12:33 PM, Turquette, Mike wrote:
    > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Saravana Kannan
    > <> wrote:
    >> I saw some responses from you over the weekend but not to mine. So, I
    >> assumed you were busy with other stuff and I started working on a patch on
    >> top of v7.
    > I only answer trivial emails on the weekend ;-)
    >> I will send that out if I get around to finishing it before you
    >> do. Hope that's alright with you.
    > I'm happy to for you to take a crack at it. I don't know what your
    > implementation looks like, but here are a couple concerns I have:
    > 1) if you're copying the data from the initializer over to the struct
    > clk then make sure you handle the __init data aspects of it properly

    Not copying them into clk again. Just leaving them in clk_hw and using
    them as is. The only fields moved into clk_hw are:
    + const char *name;
    + const struct clk_ops *ops;
    + char **parent_names;
    + u8 num_parents;
    + unsigned long flags;

    > 2) are the members of struct clk_hw visible to the rest of the world?
    > Are they modifiable (i.e., not const)? This is undesirable.

    I'm leaving the const as is. Some of them you can't mark as const if you
    want to dynamically create them.

    Yes, they are visible to all the platform drivers (not the rest of the
    world). But these values are provided by the platform drivers anyway, so
    I don't see a problem with it.

    I also don't see any useful hacks a platform driver can do by messing
    with this fields without crashing the kernel since they don't have
    access to the locks.

    flags might be the one that provides some possibilities since I think
    you look at them often in the core code. We could just copy it into clk
    if people really feel strongly about it. At the worst case, we can have
    a full copy of all these fields inside clk and copy all of them over,
    but I think that would be overkill for things like names, ops and parent

    Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
    The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-19 20:51    [W:0.022 / U:78.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site