On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:24:17 +0200
Daniel Lezcano [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:59:01AM +0200, Alexandre Belloni wrote:

quoted

On 08/06/2017 at 09:44:46 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:  

quoted

+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