[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20080225010310.B59E98E4B8@adsl-69-226-248-13.dsl.pltn13.pacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:03:10 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: hskinnemoen@...el.com
Cc: nicolas.ferre@....atmel.com, linux@...im.org.za,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc2-git 1/2] atmel_tc library
> > > > Note that this won't be usable until the AT91 and AT32 platforms
> > > > incorporate patches to configure the relevant platform devices.
> > > > Those changes are probably 2.6.26 material.
> >
> > More specifically (and all those patches are available now):
> >
> > - AT91 needs clocksource/clockevent support for the SAM9 PIT timer;
> > - AVR32 needs more extensive clocksource/clockevent updates;
>
> Which reminds me...you were talking about a patch that adds oneshot
> support for the count/compare clocksource and more cleanups, but I
> don't think I've seen it...?
I avoid sending non-working patches, and hadn't made time to
work on that issue recently.
> Yes, getting the fundamental stuff into mainline now would help a lot.
Or at least, towards the front of the merge queue, ahead of
the various platform-specific patches.
> But I was thinking about Linus' suggestions that we exploit the
> distributed nature of git and do cross-tree merges to synchronize
> changes to common code.
>
> Setting up a separate git tree would allow the changes to go into the
> arm tree without littering it with possibly unstable avr32 changes as
> well, and it would allow me to merge them and put more stuff on top.
Doing that with ARM patches is Russell's call; he hasn't been too
keen on merging from non-Linus GIT trees when that came up before.
> > > > +#define ATMEL_TC_BMR 0xc4 /* TC Block Mode Register */
> > > > +#define ATMEL_TC_TC0XC0S (3 << 0) /* external clock 0 source */
> > > > +#define ATMEL_TC_TC0XC0S_TCLK0 (0 << 0)
> > >
> > > Hmm. Indentation using spaces? I didn't know you were into that sort of
> > > thing ;-)
> >
> > It's way better than indenting off the right margin of the page!
>
> I've never really seen the point of indenting those defines at all.
Without them, it's harder to discern the logical structure of
all the various bitfields and their contents.
> > > Anyway, my main issue is that I think we should add a data structure
> > > with information about each device, similar to struct ssc_device in the
> > > atmel-ssc driver. How about something like this?
> > >
> > > struct atmel_tc_block {
> > > void __iomem *regs; /* non-NULL when busy */
> > > struct platform_device *pdev;
> > > struct clk *clk[3];
> > > struct list_head node;
> > > };
> >
> > And per-channel IRQs too...
>
> I thought about that, but while the driver can safely call clk_enable()
> on the same clock several times, I'm not sure if it's such a great idea
> to call request_irq() on the same interrupt several times. So the
> driver probably needs to know how many irqs there really are and might
> as well use platform_get_irq() to find out.
I thought the whole point of passing the clocks was to avoid needing
to ask for them!! If trying one or three platform_get_irq() calls is
OK, then surely trying one or three clk_get() calls is also OK...
- Dave
> > Well, if you want to take these patches off my hands and then be
> > responsible for merging them upstream, I won't object. :)
>
> I can do that.
>
> It's getting late around here...I'll reply to your other mail tomorrow.
>
> Haavard
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists