[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BANLkTinPKbUu40066+wr3cdFRc2di-Uv6g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 23:18:25 +0200
From: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To: Mattias Wallin <mattias.wallin@...ricsson.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] clocksource: add DB8500 PRCMU Timer support
On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Mattias Wallin
<mattias.wallin@...ricsson.com> wrote:
> On 05/31/2011 12:38 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> +++ b/include/linux/clksrc-db8500-prcmu.h
>> Huch, why needs this to be a separate head in include/linux ?
>
> I will move the header file to mach-ux500/include/mach/. Ok?
>
> (I have long time ago been thought to avoid include mach headers from the
> drivers. But if I understand it correct it is not true any more and in this
> case it certainly makes no sense since I break that rule myself.)
Keeping it under include/linux is probably wise since we want drivers
OUT of the ARM tree, but I don't know if there is much consensus on that?
I was more understanding the question as why it was needed at all.
Does it work to register the clocksource with say a core_initcall()
and avoid the header altogether?
Else a header is needed since we need to call out from the platform timer
init function to this clocksource to register it.
Thanks,
Linus Walleij
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists