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

[Marc Gonzalez <marc_gonzalez@sigmadesigns.com>]

On 09/10/2015 18:01, Måns Rullgård wrote:

> Marc Gonzalez wrote:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Apparently, nobody has needed it before (I can't say for sure that no
> existing drivers could be simplified).  That doesn't mean that nobody
> will need it again.  When something can be supported in a generic way,
> it is usually a good idea to do that.  It saves work in the long term.

You snipped this:

I would probably have used your driver had it been mainlined.
(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.)
> 
> You (Sigma)

I am not Sigma, I am Marc. I am a software dev grunt, and I have
no influence on recruitment process, business decisions, etc.

> had the chance to contract me to help out with this work and
> strongly indicated ("we will send you a contract for review by the end
> of the week") that you would.  Then you backtracked in a rather ugly
> manner.

I am sorry that you were treated like that :-(

> Forgive me if I'm less than motivated to suddenly spend hours
> of unpaid time helping you get things in shape.

<confused> I am just asking that you stop popping up on MLs NAKing
each one of my patches.

> If you don't want to pay me, you also don't get to set my schedule.

<confused> Are you referring to the DT changes I've asked you to make?

> Besides, you've never
> shown any interest whatsoever in upstreaming before, so I really don't
> see why it is so urgent for you now.

Trying to turn the tables, nice :-)

It is urgent because I have been working full-time on this for two months,
and I'd like to have results to show for it. (Management is not convinced
that upstreaming is a good idea.)

If you take a step back, you'll see that I have accepted your input and
criticism every time I thought it was warranted, e.g. everything UART
related. (And why would I not? It's nice to benefit from great work.)
But your claims regarding the clock tree are inaccurate. (I'll address
them in a separate message.)

Regards.