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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
