Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:23:40 +0100 | From | Pavel Machek <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Clocklib: add generic framework for managing clocks. |
| |
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
| |