[RFC 4/5] clocksource: omap-timer: Introduce clocksource driver for OMAP SoCs

[Joel Fernandes]

On 03/14/2014 02:32 PM, Joel Fernandes wrote:
> On 03/14/2014 10:52 AM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>> * Joel Fernandes <joelf at ti.com> [140313 16:52]:
>>> On 03/13/2014 03:48 PM, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>>>> * Joel Fernandes <joelf at TI.com> [140313 13:43]:
>>>>> We introduce functions to initialize clocksource and clockevent, use
>>>>> CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE to declare the clocksource, and handle the clocksource
>>>>> selection on a per-SoC basis (Currently only AM335x is supported). Powering up
>>>>> of the timer will be done with the help of the mach-omap layer function that's
>>>>> introduced earlier in the series.
>>>>>
>>>>> We make a local copy of dmtimer API for use by clocksource, the original
>>>>> dmtimer API in plat-omap is kept as-is till the migration of all SoCs is
>>>>> completed after which it can't be deleted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Joel Fernandes <joelf at ti.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>  drivers/clocksource/Makefile     |    1 +
>>>>>  drivers/clocksource/omap-timer.c | 1157 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>  drivers/clocksource/omap-timer.h |  422 ++++++++++++++
>>>>>  3 files changed, 1580 insertions(+)
>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/clocksource/omap-timer.c
>>>>>  create mode 100644 drivers/clocksource/omap-timer.h
>>>>
>>>> Hmm this leaves duplicate arch/arm/plat-omap/dmtimer.c code, please
>>>
>>> Sure, ofcourse- but how else can we make sure everything works while we do
>>> the migration in steps. We can get rid of the duplicate once everything is
>>> migrated.
>>
>> That's not doing incremental changes then. You're not even modifying
>> the existing omap_dm_timer functions, so please do the changes in incremental
>> steps where things keep working throughout the series.
> 
> That is much more work than appears- it is much easier to remove what you
> don't want after everything is moved, than to pick things up part by part
> and move it.. That way we also don't accidentally remove something we
> shouldn't be and introduced more regressions.. right?
> 
> Plus this is an RFC that I whipped up in 2 days so I didn't this
> expectations should be too high ;-)

s/this/think/