[lkml]   [2008]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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 <>:
> > 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 -
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