On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 12:46 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > One new API call clocksource_get_clock() which allows clocks to be > > selected based on their name, or if the name is null the highest rated > > clock is returned. > > this one (and the dependent APIs utilizations) look a step in the right > direction to me, but they are not fully consequent and thus a bit > confusing at the moment: > > - the current_clocksource is now something that is conceptually related > to timekeeping - while it still resides in the clocksource domain.
Yes . The sysfs code gets moved in the next patch so it resides in the timekeeping code .. > - if we do this split there should be a separate sysfs hierarchy for > timekeeping, separate of clocksource A long time ago I changed "current_clocksource" to "timekeeping_clocksource" which made sense at the time .. I got push back on that from John, and I think maybe Thomas .. > - you use struct sys_device clocksource_sys_device from clocksource.c in > timekeeping.c, which is inconsistent as well. > This was on purpose , because I feel the sysfs organization benefits when you have the clocksource users all in one place. Along with the list of available clocksources .. I'm all ears if you have a better suggestion .. Daniel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
