From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 16:23:40 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v6 00/10] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT
 support in arm_arch_timer
In-Reply-To: <57714bed-3f9c-90c2-ac30-2d462d8a06d4@linaro.org>
References: <1467224153-22873-1-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org>
 <5351858.jEb0qfTvrF@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <2f0e60e1-f429-2bd3-5f26-fd6199e64f34@linaro.org>
 <2435381.sM3CFAEXNR@vostro.rjw.lan>
 <57714bed-3f9c-90c2-ac30-2d462d8a06d4@linaro.org>
Message-ID: <20160701152340.GO12735@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 09:48:02PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2016/6/30 21:27, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >On Thursday, June 30, 2016 10:10:02 AM Hanjun Guo wrote:
> >>GTDT is part of ACPI spec, drivers/acpi/ is for driver code of
> >>ACPI spec, I think it can stay in drivers/acpi/ from this point
> >>of view, am I right?
> >
> >The question is not "Can it?", but "Does it need to?".
> >
> >It is in the spec, but still there's only one architecture needing it.
> >
> >There is no way to test it on any other architecture and no reason to build it
> >for any other architecture, so why does it need to be located in drivers/acpi/ ?
> 
> I'm fine to move it to other places such as arch/arm64/kernel/, but I
> would like to ask ARM64 maintainer's suggestion for this.
> 
> Will, Catalin, what's your opinion on this?

We don't have any device-tree code for the architected timer under
arch/arm64, so I don't see why we should need anything for ACPI either.

Will