On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:24:17 +0200 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
