On 20120425-22:58, Saravana Kannan wrote:

Create a struct clk_init_data to hold all data that needs to be passed from
the platfrom specific driver to the common clock framework during clock
registration. Add a pointer to this struct inside clk_hw.

This has several advantages:
* Completely hides struct clk from many clock platform drivers and static
  clock initialization code that don't care for static initialization of
  the struct clks.
* For platforms that want to do complete static initialization, it removed
  the need to directly mess with the struct clk's fields while still
  allowing to statically allocate struct clk. This keeps the code more
  future proof even if they include clk-private.h.
* Simplifies the generic clk_register() function and allows adding optional
  fields in the future without modifying the function signature.
* Simplifies the static initialization of clocks on all platforms by
  removing the need for forward delcarations or convoluted macros.

Signed-off-by: Saravana Kannan <redacted>

Hi Saravana,

Thanks for the patch.  I've taken it into my clk-next but I have two
points:

1) I'm surprised that you abandoned the approach of exposing the
less-private members of struct clk via struct clk_hw.  Your original
patch did just that, but did not account for static initialization.
This patch seems to have gone in the opposite direction and only
accounts for static initialization.

I'm happy to take the patch as-is, but I did think that there were
merits to your original approach.

2) I did make a modification to your patch where I kept the
DEFINE_CLK_* macros and continued to declare __clk_init in
clk-private.h.  I do want to get rid of both of these in the future but
currently my platform relies on static initialization before the
allocator is available.  Please let me know if this causes a problem for
you.

Platform folks should rebase on top of this if needed.  This should be
the last change to the driver/platform-facing API before 3.5.

Sascha,

Can you resubmit your fixed-factor clock?  I think the registration
function collides with these changes.

Thanks,
Mike