Re: [PATCH 1/3] Clocklib: add generic framework for managing clocks.

[Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>]

On Wed 2008-03-26 17:04:41, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:52:03 +0300
> Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > +struct clk {
> > +	struct list_head node;
> > +	struct clk	*parent;
> > +
> > +	const char	*name;
> > +	struct module	*owner;
> > +
> > +	int		users;
> > +	unsigned long	rate;
> > +	int		delay;
> > +
> > +	int (*can_get)	(struct clk *, struct device *);
> > +	int (*set_parent) (struct clk *, struct clk *);
> > +	int (*enable)	(struct clk *);
> > +	void (*disable)	(struct clk *);
> > +	unsigned long (*getrate) (struct clk*);
> > +	int (*setrate)	(struct clk *, unsigned long);
> > +	long (*roundrate) (struct clk *, unsigned long);
> > +
> > +	void		*priv;
> > +};
> 
> Hmm...this is exactly twice as big as the struct I'm currently using,
> it doesn't contain all the fields I need, and it's undocumented.

Like unifying 15-or-so versions of clock framework that are out there?

> I have quite a few clocks, so the increased memory consumption is quite
> significant. What are the advantages of this?

How many clocks do you have?



-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html