On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:24:52AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote: > On 10/03/2011 09:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This isn't in any way specific to clocks, right now the likely solution > > looks to be Grant's changes for retrying probe() as new devices come on > > line. With that devices can return a code from their probe() which > > tells the driver core that they couldn't get all the resources they need > > and that it should retry the probe() if more devices come on-line. > Except SOC clocks are initialized very early before timers are up and > there can be a very high number of dependencies (every clock except > fixed clocks). With the driver probe retry, retrying is the exception, > not the rule. > Retrying would require every caller to maintain a list of clks to > retry. With 2 stages, you can move that into the core clock code. They don't need to maintain a list of clocks to retry, they need to unwind when probe() fails. But yes. > There are not typically a large number of board-level/driver created > clocks, so ensuring correct register order is not really a problem. In > cases where there is a cross-driver dependency, the probe retry is a > good solution. I dunno, I get the impression that some of this is due to the current limitations of the clock API rather than due to a lack of clocks - perhaps that's specific to the applications I look at, though. applications _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
