Re: [PATCH 46/58] clocksource/drivers: Add a new driver for the Atmel ARM TC blocks

[Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon-wi1+55ScJUtKEb57/3fJTNBPR1lH4CV8@public.gmane.org>]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:24:17 +0200
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano-QSEj5FYQhm4dnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:59:01AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > On 08/06/2017 at 09:44:46 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:  
> > > 
> > > +Mark Rutland, +Rob Herring
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Alexandre, Boris, have a look at https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg572652.html
> > > 
> > > That will tell you the story.
> > >   
> > 
> > Ok, so is the solution putting the driver back in mach-at91 were we can
> > do whatever we want like mach-omap2 is doing?  
> 
> No. And putting a driver in mach-<whatever> does not give the permission to do
> whatever you want. I won't tell you how OSS works, but moving code around or
> using another tree to circumvent a code review is just the best way to upset
> maintainers in general and hurt your karma.
> 
> That said, I think you misunderstood my comment (or I was not clear). In the
> discussion given in the link above, I am in favor, somehow, to distinguish
> clockevent and clocksource to solve exactly what you are facing.
> 
> Rob Herring told me it could be acceptable to have a property to tell if it is
> a clockevent or a clocksource.
> 
> Mark Rutland disagreed on this.
> 
> I was alone in the discussion, no consensus have been found.

Indeed, I misunderstood your point.

> 
> Now, you have a particular use case and I would like to resurrect the
> discussion in order to find a solution which can apply to all DT drivers.

Ok, glad to see we're on the same page.

Mark, can we re-open the discussion?

Thanks,

Boris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html