lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:34:55AM +0400, Dmitry wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2008/4/26, Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>:
> > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > 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?
>
> Why? We do already have the API. And it's pretty normative. And the
> goal of my framework is to allow me and few other people not to
> reinvent the API for non-platform clocks.
>
> > That's what will happen if you try to force a framework on folk which
> > they don't agree with.
>
> If you don't want to use it, you are free to do so. E.g. you can use
> your own set of functions to implement GPIO api.

Now go back and read what Pavel wrote (which I responsed to - the
implication that your clock API _will_ _be_ forced upon _everyone_) and
you'll see that he has a completely different perspective to what you've
just said. So rather than replying to my response, why not respond to
Pavel with your points you've made above?

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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-25 22:47    [W:0.051 / U:0.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site