Re: Trivial clocksource driver

[Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>]

On 29/09/2015 20:32, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Sep 2015, Mason wrote:
> 
>> I am trying to submit a new ARM port, and Arnd pointed out that the
>> clocksource code could not live in arch/arm/$PLATFORM, but had to
>> move to drivers/clocksource (and it had to support DT).
>>
>> Did I understand correctly? Is this the right place to submit code
>> as provided below?
> 
> Yes, drivers/clocksource is the right place. You just need to submit a
> formal patch, which includes a proper subject line, changelog, plus
> the necessary Makefile and Kconfig modifications.

OK, I'll send a formal patch tomorrow.
There are no Kconfig modifications, is that OK?

Also, that patch is part of a larger patch-set (most of the
patches intended for arch/arm). I should send you only the
clocksource patch, or the whole patch-set?

>> #include <linux/delay.h>	/* register_current_timer_delay	*/
> 
> Please get rid of these silly tail comments. They provide absolutely
> no value.

I will remove them, since you asked.

In my opinion, they serve one purpose: if code is refactored,
and the function call is removed, the comment is a reminder
to also remove the relevant include directive.

Do you disagree?

> Other than that this looks reasonable.

Just wanted to ask:
Can register_current_timer_delay, sched_clock_register, and
clocksource_register_hz be called in any order?

Regards.