On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 07:55:51PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:51:15AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
quoted
This sort of issue is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what it's
useful to do with the API.
Yes, sounds like it. All I ask is that people test their patches along
the way so things don't get broken. I mean, it's great we have an
iceberg but I don't want tons of drivers on other architectures running
into the thing and sinking because people aren't being careful. Except
maybe the one already appropriately (nick)named.
It's really hard to blame the submitters here - this really isn't the
sort of API that you'd expect to only be available conditionally so this
isn't something that one would expect to have to worry about. It's a
product of the age of the clock API and the glacial progress on the
generic clock API.