Re: [PATCH v4] clocksource/drivers/tango_xtal: Add new timer for Tango SoCs

[Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com>]

Måns Rullgård wrote:

> Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> 
>> Sigma Designs Tango platforms provide a 27 MHz crystal oscillator.
>> Use it for clocksource, sched_clock, and delay_timer.
> 
> Given the nature of this hardware, I think it would make much more sense
> to support it in a generic fashion.  Otherwise the next chip that comes
> along with a similar counter will result in near duplicate of this
> "driver", and so on.

I didn't /want/ to write this driver, or rather this "driver" as you put it
(implying that it is so trivial that I am lame even to submit it). It was
living happily in arch/arm/clock-tango.c, but Arnd pointed out that such
code must migrate to drivers/clocksource.

I find your claim that this minimal device (a single register really) should
be supported in a generic fashion questionable. No one seems to have ever
needed this, yet it has suddenly become urgent to have it right now?

I would probably have used your driver had it been mainlined; but it is not,
and Rob and Mark didn't seem convinced AFAICT...
(Also note that your driver doesn't set up the delay timer, which I want.)

I'm sorry if my mainlining effort is not compatible with your schedule, but
I've been working on this port for 6 months, and I can't wait a few more
weeks just because you're not quite ready. (Have you mainstreamed the eth
and intc driver? I would actually need those.)

> I've suggested this before, and I even sent
> patches for it (currently under discussion),

Yes, and you carefully omitted to CC me, despite my request that you do so.
Thanks for that.

> but you keep refusing to listen.  Are you that desperate to see your
> name on a commit?  The fact
> that you keep rewriting, poorly, code you know I've already made
> available suggests this might be the case.  You even admit in private
> that you couldn't have done this without looking at my tango3 tree.
> Frankly, I find your behaviour shameful.

Don't twist my words. I said I couldn't have written the eth and intc driver
(and relevant DT setup).

Are you now simultaneously claiming that

1) my driver is trivial
2) I couldn't have written it without your help

implying that I cannot code even trivial drivers?

EOT