Messages in this thread | | | From | "Turquette, Mike" <> | Date | Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:30:22 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] DT clock bindings |
| |
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Rob Herring <robherring2@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/21/2012 12:54 PM, Mike Turquette wrote: >> On 20120621-10:00, Rob Herring wrote: >>> On 06/21/2012 02:27 AM, Chris Ball wrote: >>>> >>>> 2) Use alloc_bootmem() instead of kzalloc() in of_clk_add_provider(), >>>> because we need to set up clocks during .init_early on ARM (which >>>> happens pre-slab) so that they are available for platform init. >>> >>> This depends on 1 as the common clock code would have the same issue. >>> Generally, the first place clocks are needed is the timer init. At that >>> point, you can call kzalloc. This is where all the clock init used to be >>> done until init_early was added and some platforms have moved their >>> clock init. I don't think there was really ever much reason to move it >>> other than to make the timer init function only deal with timer setup. >>> >> >> Hi Rob, >> >> Just FYI I've been looking at using alloc_bootmem in the common clk code >> as a way to get rid of the static initialization stuff (which only >> existed due to very early initialization of timers). > > The slab is up at the time timers are initialized. The only real problem > is mixing clock init into the timer init functions and clk init in > init_early is cleaner in that regard. >
Hi Rob,
I'm afraid I don't follow you when you say "slab is up at the time timers are initialized". On some platforms I believe that timer initialization takes place before slab is ready (.early_init).
>> The suggested change above to of_clk_add_provider would jive well with >> my change to the common clk code. > > Are you planning this for 3.6? If not, then this can be addressed at the > time the clk framework supports bootmem. > > I'm not so sure more users of bootmem are desired. There seems to be > some effort/desire to remove it: > > http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000562.html > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/13/586 > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2011-December/074886.html
So after looking at those mails it seems using memblock_alloc would be a better alternative. Did I get that right?
Thanks, Mike
> > Rob -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |