On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:01:49AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:48:44AM +0100, Francesco VIRLINZI wrote:
> > Hi Jeremy
> > In November I already sent a proposal on
> > a generic linux clk framework.
> > On that I would suggest:
> >
> >>
> >> +struct clk {
> >
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:01:49AM +, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:48:44AM +0100, Francesco VIRLINZI wrote:
> > Hi Jeremy
> > In November I already sent a proposal on
> > a generic linux clk framework.
> > On that I would suggest:
> >
> >>
> >> +struct clk {
> >
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 05:58:31PM +1100, Jeremy Kerr wrote:
> We currently have 21 definitions of struct clk in the ARM architecture,
> each defined on a per-platform basis. This makes it difficult to define
> platform- (or architecture-) independent clock sources without making
> assumptions abou
Hi Jeremy
In November I already sent a proposal on
a generic linux clk framework.
On that I would suggest:
+struct clk {
+ const struct clk_operations *ops;
spinlock_t lock;
const char *name;
int id;
unsigned long rate;
+};
+
+struct clk_
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 09:48:44AM +0100, Francesco VIRLINZI wrote:
> Hi Jeremy
> In November I already sent a proposal on
> a generic linux clk framework.
> On that I would suggest:
>
>>
>> +struct clk {
>> +const struct clk_operations *ops;
>>
>spinlock_t lock;
>c
We currently have 21 definitions of struct clk in the ARM architecture,
each defined on a per-platform basis. This makes it difficult to define
platform- (or architecture-) independent clock sources without making
assumptions about struct clk.
This change is an effort to unify struct clk where pos
