On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thursday 14 March 2013, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > But if its arch specific for hardware I don't have, I'd really prefer the >> > arch >> > maintainer be the upstream path. >> > >> > Thomas: Am I being too obstinate here? If not, should we drop "F: >> > drivers/clocksource" from the MAINTAINERS entry? > > The idea of moving drivers out of arch/* into drivers/* is definitely to > have someone who understands the subsystem act as the gatekeeper. There > should be very little architecture specific knowledge in those drivers, > and I think it's more important to ensure that they are following a > sensible understanding of how timekeeping is done than that they > are following specific architecture maintainer's preferences. > >> Maybe we should move the ARM specific ones into >> drivers/clocksource/arm/ ? > > About half the IP blocks we use on ARM are also used on at least > one ARM64/AVR32/MIPS/PowerPC/x86/SH/Hexagon/c6x/etc part. Grouping them > by which CPU architecture first starts using them or happens to be > more popular at the time does not seem too helpful here. > > Maybe it's better to have a subdirectory for those clock sources > that are used on any SoC, or have subdirectories based on the > company that created that part, as we do for ethernet drivers. > I wouldn't bother with that until there are a couple of dozen > different clock source drivers.
So it seems the (weak...) consensus is that it should go through the clocksource tree. John, can you please apply the patch ? Thanks, csd _______________________________________________ devicetree-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/devicetree-discuss
