ARM clock API to PowerPC

Mark Brown broonie at
Thu Aug 13 08:45:07 EST 2009

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:28:43PM +0100, Russell King wrote:

> We used to pass names.  Everyone got the idea that they could ignore
> the struct device argument, and chaos ensued in drivers - people wanted
> to name each of their individual clk structures uniquely, and pass
> clock names, or even struct clk pointers into drivers via platform data.
> Some drivers conditionalized the clock name depending on the SoC they
> were built for in the driver code.

Yes, that sort of stuff is obviously crazy - you just end up with more
code to pass the name/pointer around than you have to register things at
init time.

> What I'm saying is that always passing a bunch of names has been well
> proven to lead people down the wrong path of matching only by names
> and then running into problems later.  We need drivers passing a NULL
> name to ensure that people get the right idea.  Comments in code/headers
> don't seem to work. ;(

I always suspected half the problem with people getting the wrong idea
is that having to implement the lookup and mapping stuff (which clkdev
now provides) seemed like too much work.

More information about the devicetree-discuss mailing list