Messages in this thread | | | From | Fu Wei <> | Date | Mon, 20 Mar 2017 17:43:29 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v21 01/13] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: introduce two functions to get the frequency from mmio and sysreg. |
| |
Hi Mark,
On 20 March 2017 at 15:36, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > On 18 March 2017 at 02:05, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:03AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote: >>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_sysreg_freq(void) >>> +{ >>> + /* >>> + * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of sysreg. >>> + */ >>> + return arch_timer_get_cntfrq(); >>> +} >> >> We already have arch_timer_get_cntfrq(), so I don't see the point in >> this wrapper. >> >>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_mmio_freq(void __iomem *cntbase) >>> +{ >>> + /* >>> + * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of timer frame registers. >>> + * Note: please verify cntbase in caller. >>> + */ >>> + return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ); >>> +} >> >> Wrapping the MMIO read makes sense if we're going to do this in more >> than one place, so I'm happy with this wrapper. >> >> If you can s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_cntfrq/, and drop > > sorry, May I guess that is > "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_mmio_cntfrq/" > or > "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq/" > > which one do you prefer? :-)
keeping using arch_timer_get_cntfrq(); for per-CPU arch timer, then
+static u32 arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq(void __iomem *cntbase) +{ + return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ); +} +
Is that OK for you?
> >> the comments, then this looks fine to me. >> >> Thanks, >> Mark. > > > > -- > Best regards, > > Fu Wei > Software Engineer > Red Hat
-- Best regards,
Fu Wei Software Engineer Red Hat
| |