Re: MMC: Make the configuration memory resource optional

[Mark Brown]

On 29 Jul 2009, at 13:58, Ian Molton <ian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Magnus Damm wrote:
>
> > > Indeed.  It's actually much worse than you say, each individual ARM
> > > architecture has its own clock API implementation of varying  
> > > quality and
> > > of course there are architectures that don't do the clock API at  
> > > all.
> > Yeah. This is exactly why I don't want to block on the clocklib  
> > implementation.
>
> Yeah, good idea... lets ignore the problem until its so big we cant  
> fix it at all...

The problem here is sufficiently substantial that I'd be impressed if  
we managed to get a good solution in within a single kernel release.  
This does help encourage people to keep local hacks but those are much  
more realistic.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/