On 13 February 2015 at 10:11, Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday, February 13, 2015 08:54:56 AM Viresh Kumar wrote: >> It is not possible for the clockevents core to know which modes (other than >> those with a corresponding feature flag) are supported by a particular >> implementation. And drivers are expected to handle transition to all modes >> elegantly, as ->set_mode() would be issued for them unconditionally. >> >> Now, adding support for a new mode complicates things a bit if we want to use >> the legacy ->set_mode() callback. We need to closely review all clockevents >> drivers to see if they would break on addition of a new mode. And after such >> reviews, it is found that we have to do non-trivial changes to most of the >> drivers [1]. >> >> Introduce mode-specific set_mode_*() callbacks, some of which the drivers >> may or >> may not implement. A missing callback would clearly convey the message that >> the >> corresponding mode isn't supported. > > This is not going to fly AFAICS if you don't say what exacly you need it for.
For this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/5/9/508 -- 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/
