Re: [PATCH v5 3/4] clk: introduce the common clock framework

[Shawn Guo]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 10:25:00AM -0800, Turquette, Mike wrote:
...
> However if you have the ability to use the clk_foo_register functions
> please do use them in place of static initialization.  The static init
> stuff is only for folks backed into a corner and forced to use it...
> for now.  I'm looking at ways to allow for kmalloc'ing in early boot,
> as well as reducing the number of clocks that my platform registers
> during early boot drastically.
> 
While I agree using registration functions rather than static
initialization will help make "struct clk" an opaque cookie, I also
see some benefit with using static initialization over registration
functions.  That is we will be able to initialize parents statically
rather than calling expensive __clk_lookup() to find them when using
registration functions.

I'm not sure if this will be a concern with the platforms that have
hundreds of clocks.  Keep it in mind, when we say one clock, there
are generally 3 clks behind it, clk_gate, clk_divider and clk_mux.

-- 
Regards,
Shawn
--
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/