On 03/16/2012 06:47 PM, Sascha Hauer wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 04:21:17PM -0600, Paul Walmsley wrote:
Hi
On Fri, 16 Mar 2012, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
If the common clock code is to go upstream now, it should be marked as experimental.
No, please don't do this. This effectively marks the architectures using the generic clock framework experimental. We can mark drivers as 'you have been warned', but marking an architecture as experimental is the wrong sign for both its users and people willing to adopt the framework. Also we get this:
warning: (ARCH_MX1 && MACH_MX21 && ARCH_MX25 && MACH_MX27) selects COMMON_CLK which has unmet direct dependencies (EXPERIMENTAL)
(and no, I don't want to support to clock frameworks in parallel)
+1
For simple users at least, the api is perfectly adequate and it is not experimental (unless new means experimental).
Rob
This is because we know the API is not well-defined, and that both the API and the underlying mechanics will almost certainly need to change for non-trivial uses of the rate changing code (e.g., DVFS with external I/O devices).
Please leave DVFS out of the game. DVFS will use the clock framework for the F part and the regulator framework for the V part, but the clock framework should not get extended with DVFS features. The notifiers we currently have in the clock framework should give enough information for DVFS implementations. Even if they don't and we have to change something here this will have no influence on the architectures implementing their clock tree with the common clock framework.
Sascha