On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:25:00AM -0800, Turquette, Mike wrote: ... > However if you have the ability to use the clk_foo_register functions > please do use them in place of static initialization. The static init > stuff is only for folks backed into a corner and forced to use it... > for now. I'm looking at ways to allow for kmalloc'ing in early boot, > as well as reducing the number of clocks that my platform registers > during early boot drastically. > While I agree using registration functions rather than static initialization will help make "struct clk" an opaque cookie, I also see some benefit with using static initialization over registration functions. That is we will be able to initialize parents statically rather than calling expensive __clk_lookup() to find them when using registration functions.
I'm not sure if this will be a concern with the platforms that have hundreds of clocks. Keep it in mind, when we say one clock, there are generally 3 clks behind it, clk_gate, clk_divider and clk_mux. -- Regards, Shawn _______________________________________________ linaro-dev mailing list linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
