lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 6/6] ACPI: import watchdog info of GTDT into platform device
From
Hi Will,

As you know, I have moved all the GTDT code to ACPI driver , and
simplify the GTDT relevant code in arm_arch_timer.c. That will be in
my next patchset.
but you can check here :
https://git.linaro.org/people/fu.wei/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/acpi-topic-sbsa-watchdog_upstream_v4_devel

Great thanks for your suggestion!

On 27 May 2015 at 18:44, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 05:27:33PM +0100, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 26 May 2015 at 23:36, Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net> wrote:
>> > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 04:18:42PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>> >> Sure, the device it describes may only ever exist on ARM systems, but by
>> >> that logic then we should be moving lots of drivers back under arch/arm[64].
>> >>
>> > It is nt the driver, but its instantiation. The question here would be
>> > how and where to instantiate the driver, not where the driver itself
>> > is located. The driver itself is ACPI agnostic.
>>
>> I really don't mind to refactor the code, If we can make this patch better.
>>
>> But for now, I can't see the good reason to move ACPI-relevant code
>> into a watchdog driver.
>
> I don't really mind where you move it, just as long as it's outside of
> arch/arm64.
>
>> The reasons I put the code here are
>> (1)SBSA watchdog only for ARM64
>> (2)GTDT only for ARM, design for ARM,
>> (3)For ARM Architecture, only ARM64 support ACPI.
>>
>> For minimizing arch/arm64/kernel/acpi.c, we can't put the code here,
>> and we had better keep these code outside the driver,
>>
>> So do you have any suggestion for the better location of the GTDT code?
>
> I don't understand why you can't do the same as
> drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c and parse the table directly in the
> driver. If there are objections from the driver/subsystem maintainers then
> it sounds like we need a mechanical ACPI table -> platform device
> conversion in the core, like we have for device-tree.
>
> Will



--
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat Software (Beijing) Co.,Ltd.Shanghai Branch
Ph: +86 21 61221326(direct)
Ph: +86 186 2020 4684 (mobile)
Room 1512, Regus One Corporate Avenue,Level 15,
One Corporate Avenue,222 Hubin Road,Huangpu District,
Shanghai,China 200021


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-05-29 13:41    [W:0.056 / U:9.484 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site