[PATCH V7 1/2] ARM: bcm281xx: Add timer driver (driver portion)

[Christian Daudt]

On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 9:03 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb.de> 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