Re: [PATCH 1/3] Clocklib: add generic framework for managingclocks.

[Haavard Skinnemoen]

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:52:03 +0300
Dmitry Baryshkov <dbaryshkov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> +struct clk {
> +	struct list_head node;
> +	struct clk	*parent;
> +
> +	const char	*name;
> +	struct module	*owner;
> +
> +	int		users;
> +	unsigned long	rate;
> +	int		delay;
> +
> +	int (*can_get)	(struct clk *, struct device *);
> +	int (*set_parent) (struct clk *, struct clk *);
> +	int (*enable)	(struct clk *);
> +	void (*disable)	(struct clk *);
> +	unsigned long (*getrate) (struct clk*);
> +	int (*setrate)	(struct clk *, unsigned long);
> +	long (*roundrate) (struct clk *, unsigned long);
> +
> +	void		*priv;
> +};

Hmm...this is exactly twice as big as the struct I'm currently using,
it doesn't contain all the fields I need, and it's undocumented.

I have quite a few clocks, so the increased memory consumption is quite
significant. What are the advantages of this?

Haavard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/