On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:27:39AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote: > > Assuming that some day OMAP code can be refactored to allow for lazy > > (or at least initcall-based) registration of clocks then perhaps your > > suggestion can take root. Which leads me to this question: are there > > any other platforms out there that require the level of expose to > > struct clk present in this patchset? OMAP does, for now, but if that > > changes then I need to know if others require this as well. > > Hi Mike > > For kirkwood, i use static clk's for all but my root clock. I cannot > statically know the rate of the root clock, so i have to determine it > at boot time using heuristics, PCI ID, etc. > > I used statics thinking it would be less code. No idea if it actually > is, and there is nothing stopping me moving to creating the clocks > after creating the root clock.
I'd say use the nonstatic ones. I think using the static initializers will cause us much pain in the future. I've been through several rebases on the i.MX clock rework and everytime I wish my sed foo would be better. Now imagine what happens when it turns out that the internal struct clk layout or the structs for the muxes/dividers/gates have to be changed. This task is next to impossible when we have thousands of clocks scattered around the tree. Sascha -- Pengutronix e.K. | | Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 | _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
