On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 03:17:10AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:

On Tue, March 20, 2012 2:40 am, Sascha Hauer wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:54:55AM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:

quoted

I am using these functions and don't need a static array, I just call
the functions with the desired parameters.

Sure, then let's leave it in. Curious, where do you get the desired
parameters from? Is it static date in code or is it from DT? You somehow
probe it?

It's not from DT. See this thread:

http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg165839.html

quoted

Overall the clock framework was written in a way that we have to expose
as little information about the internally used structs as necessary. It
seems your patches are pulling in the opposite direction now.

I'm not exposing anything that you don't already pass from the platform
driver. Also, you realize that this is very similar to what you suggested
with clk_initializer right? If there is a strong push, we can make a copy
of these inside the struct clk, but for these few init fields I don't see
a point (see earlier email).

The difference is that a struct clk_initializer is only used to
initialize a clock and not actively used by the clock framework. But as
you already mentioned using a copy inside the clock framework has the
same effect.

Sascha

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           |                             |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
Peiner Str. 6-8, 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0    |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686           | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |