On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:28:43PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > We used to pass names. Everyone got the idea that they could ignore > the struct device argument, and chaos ensued in drivers - people wanted > to name each of their individual clk structures uniquely, and pass > clock names, or even struct clk pointers into drivers via platform data. > Some drivers conditionalized the clock name depending on the SoC they > were built for in the driver code.
Yes, that sort of stuff is obviously crazy - you just end up with more code to pass the name/pointer around than you have to register things at init time. > What I'm saying is that always passing a bunch of names has been well > proven to lead people down the wrong path of matching only by names > and then running into problems later. We need drivers passing a NULL > name to ensure that people get the right idea. Comments in code/headers > don't seem to work. ;( I always suspected half the problem with people getting the wrong idea is that having to implement the lookup and mapping stuff (which clkdev now provides) seemed like too much work. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
