Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:44:50 +0100 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework |
| |
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:34:55AM +0400, Dmitry wrote: > Hi, > > 2008/4/26, Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>: > > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > > > WTF? There are currently around 10 copies of clock code in the tree, > > > every one slightly different. If this can help us get rid of all that > > > crap, that's a GOOD THING, normative or not. > > > > > > At the expense of people going off and inventing their own APIs because > > they find that the "normatived" clock API doesn't do what they need to? > > Why? We do already have the API. And it's pretty normative. And the > goal of my framework is to allow me and few other people not to > reinvent the API for non-platform clocks. > > > That's what will happen if you try to force a framework on folk which > > they don't agree with. > > If you don't want to use it, you are free to do so. E.g. you can use > your own set of functions to implement GPIO api.
Now go back and read what Pavel wrote (which I responsed to - the implication that your clock API _will_ _be_ forced upon _everyone_) and you'll see that he has a completely different perspective to what you've just said. So rather than replying to my response, why not respond to Pavel with your points you've made above?
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of:
| |