On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:15:31AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:26:22PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 08:01:22PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > + if (!clk_register(&pdev->dev, "xtal", &wm831x_xtal_ops, > > > + &clkdata->xtal_hw, NULL, 0, CLK_IS_ROOT)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > The clock names are unique identifiers for the clock, so clocks in > > drivers should probably have dev_name encoded into them. > > No, that's not sensible. We shouldn't be open coding this into each > individual driver that provides clocks, and we shouldn't have clock > users having to guess at what scheme the driver author used to dedupe > the clocks. As a driver author you would assume that the reason we're > providing the struct device to the registration function in the first > place is so that the core has the information it needs to do that. > > I did provide patches to do what you suggest in the core for one of the > earlier versions of the API, I have to say I didn't check to see if they > got dropped during the general lulls. It seems they got dropped. Currently the clock framework does nothing with the device argument. But right, it could use this argument to generate a suitable name. 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 | _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel