On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:05:29PM +0900, jassi brar wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Mark Brown
> > This is going to set off warnings from a clock API point of view - > > passing clock names around in platform data is usually a sign that > > something is very wrong. Keeping the mapping inside the clock API > > (still controlled by the board driver but by telling the clock API that > > device X should use clock Y). > no clock pointer needs to be passed, just a pointer to an array of _strings_ > There is no need to even include any clock header in platform code > for the purpose. Yes, that's what I was commenting on - like I say, passing clock names tends to set off the same alarm bells as passing a struct clk. Like I say, the general model for this has been that the fixups will be done by having the machine code talk to the clock API ratehr than bouncing the data about the clock to use through the driver. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
