On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 07:27:39AM +0100, Andrew Lunn wrote:
Assuming that some day OMAP code can be refactored to allow for lazy (or at least initcall-based) registration of clocks then perhaps your suggestion can take root. Which leads me to this question: are there any other platforms out there that require the level of expose to struct clk present in this patchset? OMAP does, for now, but if that changes then I need to know if others require this as well.
Hi Mike
For kirkwood, i use static clk's for all but my root clock. I cannot statically know the rate of the root clock, so i have to determine it at boot time using heuristics, PCI ID, etc.
I used statics thinking it would be less code. No idea if it actually is, and there is nothing stopping me moving to creating the clocks after creating the root clock.
I'd say use the nonstatic ones. I think using the static initializers will cause us much pain in the future. I've been through several rebases on the i.MX clock rework and everytime I wish my sed foo would be better. Now imagine what happens when it turns out that the internal struct clk layout or the structs for the muxes/dividers/gates have to be changed. This task is next to impossible when we have thousands of clocks scattered around the tree.
Sascha