Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] clk: Add a generic clock infrastructure
From: Mark Brown
Date: Mon Oct 03 2011 - 12:31:20 EST
On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 10:24:52AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 09:25 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > This isn't in any way specific to clocks, right now the likely solution
> > looks to be Grant's changes for retrying probe() as new devices come on
> > line. With that devices can return a code from their probe() which
> > tells the driver core that they couldn't get all the resources they need
> > and that it should retry the probe() if more devices come on-line.
> Except SOC clocks are initialized very early before timers are up and
> there can be a very high number of dependencies (every clock except
> fixed clocks). With the driver probe retry, retrying is the exception,
> not the rule.
> Retrying would require every caller to maintain a list of clks to
> retry. With 2 stages, you can move that into the core clock code.
They don't need to maintain a list of clocks to retry, they need to
unwind when probe() fails. But yes.
> There are not typically a large number of board-level/driver created
> clocks, so ensuring correct register order is not really a problem. In
> cases where there is a cross-driver dependency, the probe retry is a
> good solution.
I dunno, I get the impression that some of this is due to the current
limitations of the clock API rather than due to a lack of clocks -
perhaps that's specific to the applications I look at, though.
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/