lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: Trivial clocksource driver
    From
    Date
    On 29/09/2015 20:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

    > On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Mason wrote:
    >
    >> I am trying to submit a new ARM port, and Arnd pointed out that the
    >> clocksource code could not live in arch/arm/$PLATFORM, but had to
    >> move to drivers/clocksource (and it had to support DT).
    >>
    >> Did I understand correctly? Is this the right place to submit code
    >> as provided below?
    >
    > Yes, drivers/clocksource is the right place. You just need to submit a
    > formal patch, which includes a proper subject line, changelog, plus
    > the necessary Makefile and Kconfig modifications.

    OK, I'll send a formal patch tomorrow.
    There are no Kconfig modifications, is that OK?

    Also, that patch is part of a larger patch-set (most of the
    patches intended for arch/arm). I should send you only the
    clocksource patch, or the whole patch-set?

    >> #include <linux/delay.h> /* register_current_timer_delay */
    >
    > Please get rid of these silly tail comments. They provide absolutely
    > no value.

    I will remove them, since you asked.

    In my opinion, they serve one purpose: if code is refactored,
    and the function call is removed, the comment is a reminder
    to also remove the relevant include directive.

    Do you disagree?

    > Other than that this looks reasonable.

    Just wanted to ask:
    Can register_current_timer_delay, sched_clock_register, and
    clocksource_register_hz be called in any order?

    Regards.



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-09-29 22:01    [W:3.275 / U:1.128 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site