[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 Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> > > 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?
> Just now, everyone just cuts&copies clock.c. I do not think "new"
> situation can worse than that.

That's certainly not what I've seen going on. Each implementation is
customised to the needs of the SoC it's running on - OMAP has a complex
implementation, whereas simpler SoCs have a more simple implementation.

That's an entirely reasonable state of affairs - those who need complexity
are able to have it, whereas those who don't need complexity don't have
to be lumbered with it.

It's a long way from a "cut and copy" situation you're trying to suggest
it is. Certainly on ARM, your viewpoint does not hold.

Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux -
maintainer of:

 \ /
  Last update: 2008-04-25 23:17    [W:0.151 / U:51.376 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site