From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: johnstul@us.ibm.com (John Stultz) Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2012 16:48:02 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v9 1/9] clocksource: time-armada-370-xp: Marvell Armada 370/XP SoC timer driver In-Reply-To: <1341588221-3822-2-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> References: <1341588221-3822-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1341588221-3822-2-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <50074B32.8090607@us.ibm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 07/06/2012 08:23 AM, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > From: Gregory Clement > > Timer 0 is used as free-running clocksource, while timer 1 is used as > clock_event_device. I don't see the any clocksource in this patch. Why is this tagged clocksource? I'm also not a huge fan of adding clockevent drivers to drivers/clocksource/. Further, LinusW and I have different opinions on this (and its not that huge of an issue), but I'd really prefer to see additions to drivers/clocksource be only for clocksources that are likely to be shared *between architectures*. Similarly, I'd prefer architecture specific clocksources (like TSC on x86, timebase on ppc, etc) stay in the arch subdir, just so theirs a clear ownership of the driver (ie: if in 10 years specific hw support is dropped from the arch directory, we don't end up with zombie drivers that live on because generic driver maintainers don't know what hardware they're actually connected to). (But I'm somewhat flexible on this last point, as long as there really is a chance it might be shared at some point) thanks -john