On Friday, February 13, 2015 11:01:18 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 13 February 2015 at 10:11, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, February 13, 2015 08:54:56 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: > >> It is not possible for the clockevents core to know which modes (other than > >> those with a corresponding feature flag) are supported by a particular > >> implementation. And drivers are expected to handle transition to all modes > >> elegantly, as ->set_mode() would be issued for them unconditionally. > >> > >> Now, adding support for a new mode complicates things a bit if we want to > >> use > >> the legacy ->set_mode() callback. We need to closely review all clockevents > >> drivers to see if they would break on addition of a new mode. And after > >> such > >> reviews, it is found that we have to do non-trivial changes to most of the > >> drivers [1]. > >> > >> Introduce mode-specific set_mode_*() callbacks, some of which the drivers > >> may or > >> may not implement. A missing callback would clearly convey the message > >> that the > >> corresponding mode isn't supported. > > > > This is not going to fly AFAICS if you don't say what exacly you need it > > for. > > For this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/9/508
OK, I see. -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
