lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Oct]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v14 7/9] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Refactor the timer init code to prepare for GTDT
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:24:32PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> On 21 October 2016 at 19:32, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:17:15AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
> >> +static int __init arch_timer_mem_register(struct device_node *np, void *frame)
> >> {
> >> - int ret;
> >> - irq_handler_t func;
> >> + struct device_node *frame_node = NULL;
> >> struct arch_timer *t;
> >> + void __iomem *base;
> >> + irq_handler_t func;
> >> + unsigned int irq;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (!frame)
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >
> > Why would we call this without a frame?
>
> Sorry, I just verify it , make sure frame is not NULL,
> Because it is a "static" function, so we do need this check?

I'd rather we simply don't call the function rather than passing a NULL
frame in.

> >> +
> >> + if (np) {
> >
> > ... or without a node?
>
> For "np", for now, we just just verify it, but it is just paperation
> for GTDT support,
> Because in next patch, if np == NULL, that means we call this function
> from GTDT, but not DT.

Please don't do that. More on that below.

> > Please as Marc requested several versions ago: split the FW parsing
> > (ACPI and DT) so that happens first, *then* once we have the data in a
> > common format, use that to drive poking the HW, requesting IRQs, etc,
> > completely independent of the source.
> >
> > In patches, do this by:
> >
> > (1) adding the data structures
> > (2) splitting the existing DT probing to use them
> > (3) Adding ACPI functionality atop
>
> this patch is a preparation for GTDT support, I have splitted some
> functions for reusing them in next patch(GTDT support)
>
> if np == NULL, that means we call this function from GTDT, but
> if np != NULL, that means we call this function from DT

As above, please structure the patches such that that never happens.

We currently have:

+--------------------------+
| DT Parsing + Common code |
+--------------------------+

Per (1 and 2) make this:

+------------+ +-------------+
| DT parsing |--(common structure)-->| Common code |
+------------+ +-------------+

Then per (3) make this:

+------------+
| DT parsing |--(common structure)------+
+------------+ |
v
+-------------+
| Common code |
+-------------+
^
+--------------+ |
| ACPI parsing |--(common structure)----+
+--------------+

Thanks,
Mark.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-10-26 17:48    [W:0.110 / U:0.052 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site