Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Trivial clocksource driver | From | Mason <> | Date | Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:49:06 +0200 |
| |
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.
| |