Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:13:43 +0100 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/5] Clocklib: generic clocks framework |
| |
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:51:51PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote: > Hi! > > > > 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? > > Just now, everyone just cuts&copies clock.c. I do not think "new" > situation can worse than that.
That's certainly not what I've seen going on. Each implementation is customised to the needs of the SoC it's running on - OMAP has a complex implementation, whereas simpler SoCs have a more simple implementation.
That's an entirely reasonable state of affairs - those who need complexity are able to have it, whereas those who don't need complexity don't have to be lumbered with it.
It's a long way from a "cut and copy" situation you're trying to suggest it is. Certainly on ARM, your viewpoint does not hold.
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of:
| |