From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: johnstul@us.ibm.com (john stultz) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:10:49 -0700 Subject: [patch 00/16] arm: Replace arm sched_clock by clocksource based sched_clock In-Reply-To: References: <20110423205036.795894921@linutronix.de> Message-ID: <1303758649.2816.57.camel@work-vm> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, 2011-04-24 at 09:27 +0200, Linus Walleij wrote: > 2011/4/23 Thomas Gleixner : > > > Most of ARM sched_clocks is using the timekeeping clocksource as the > > sched_clock. Only versatile uses a different clock for it, but there > > is no real reason why it can't use the clocksource as well. > > Excellent patch set! > > > Another 650 lines gone :) > > Any reason why we can't simply move *all* of these to > drivers/clocksource/* and proceed with consolidation there? This gives me some pause, as having the clocksources in the platform code makes it easier to know what platform needs to be tested when a change is made. The rule so far has been if more then one arch can make use of it, it should be moved to the drivers/clocksource dir. Otherwise, leave it close to any arch specific code that manages the hardware. > It must be a pain having to grep through the tree to find all of > these (even though I bet you know them all by heart now). Not sure if grepping backwards through config dependencies to see who actually uses a specific clocksource would be easier. But I'll admit that sharing code is likely more important. thanks -john