On Thu Feb 12, 2026 at 8:59 AM CET, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2026 at 05:47:09PM +0100, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >> On Wed Feb 11, 2026 at 5:37 PM CET, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> > I do think we can find a compromise though. Miguel suggested for example >> > to make the current enable/prepare/disable/unprepare function unsafe, >> > and that's totally reasonable to me. >> > >> > Then we can implement the "managed" clock version on that unsafe API, >> >> What do you mean with "managed" clock? Do you mean devres managed? If so, I >> don't think there is any reason to switch to the unsafe API to be able to >> implement devres managed APIs (see also [1]). >> >> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ > > By that, I mean what Daniel has been proposing to achieve with this series. > >> > and we would end up with a "raw", unsafe, version kind of equivalent to >> > the one we have today, and where callers would have to justify why their >> > usage of the API is actually safe, or the new, managed, variant that is >> > safe and can be easily used by most drivers. >> > >> > And we can call these RawClk vs Clk, or Clk vs ManagedClk, or whatever. >> > >> > How does that sound? >> >> What about we just wait until we have a user that really requires an unsafe >> API >> for some reason? And if it never appears, even better. :) > > It works *today*. > > And the "oh but driver is using the API" is kind of ironic in the > context of the Rust bindings which have globally been in that situation > for years. You can't argue it both ways.
I can't remember ever advocating for merging code that does not have at least a user in prospect. > Either way, I'm not sure what the point of that submission was if you > will just dismiss diverging opinions, including attempts to compromise. Sorry -- I'm a bit confused here, since I did not submit this code. I'm also not dismissing your opinion; I just have a different one. In particular, I don't think we need an unsafe API until we see a concrete example where the proposed safe API does not work (and no other safe API would work either). Framing a difference in opinion as "dismissing diverging opinions" doesn't feel fair to me. > Do whatever you want, but it's really hard to root for you some times. I'm starting to wonder if the mail is addressed to me in the first place. Thanks, Danilo
