Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 8 Apr 2008 00:06:40 +0100 | From | Russell King <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 6/6] Clocklib: use correct name for 3,6MHz clock |
| |
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:01:55PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 17:24:11 +0400 > Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@gmail.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/common/sa1111.c | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c b/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c > > index eb06d0b..282a4d9 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/common/sa1111.c > > @@ -627,7 +627,7 @@ __sa1111_probe(struct device *me, struct resource *mem, int irq) > > if (!sachip) > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > - sachip->clk = clk_get(me, "GPIO27_CLK"); > > + sachip->clk = clk_get(me, "3_6MHz_CLK"); > > if (!sachip->clk) { > > ret = PTR_ERR(sachip->clk); > > goto err_free; > > Again, there's just not enough information for us (well: me) to be able to > evaluate this patch. > > For example, if the current name is "incorrect" then why shouldn't we fix > it in 2.6.25? 2.6.24? etc.
I don't see any reason for this change. Except maybe someone wanted a nicer name to be exposed to userland. I don't see the point of exposing what's supposed to be a kernel _internal_ API to userland and then having an issue with those names being exported there.
To put it another way: I don't ever want to have to think about userland issues when dealing with device clocking interfaces.
-- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of:
|  |