From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752180AbbI2TtV (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:49:21 -0400
Received: from smtp4-g21.free.fr ([212.27.42.4]:5931 "EHLO smtp4-g21.free.fr"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751669AbbI2TtQ (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 29 Sep 2015 15:49:16 -0400
Subject: Re: Trivial clocksource driver
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
References: <560ABB95.8000404@free.fr>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509292030010.4500@nanos>
From: Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>
Message-ID: <560AEB32.50006@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 21:49:06 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/38.0 SeaMonkey/2.35
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1509292030010.4500@nanos>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

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.