[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101208203704.GB30923@linux-mips.org>
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:37:04 +0000
From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
To: David Daney <ddaney@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: Anoop P A <anoop.pa@...il.com>, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce mips_late_time_init
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:42:45AM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 12:23 AM, Anoop P A wrote:
> >This patch moves plat_time_init and clocksoure init funtion calls to
> >late_time_init.
> >
>
> Why would you want to do this?
>
> The current code works perfectly, so I see no reason to change it.
Well, not really. By the time time_init is called kmalloc isn't ready yet.
That's why mips_clockevent_device pretty much had to be statically
allocated and is also why interrupts have to use setup_irq instead of
request_irq.
Keeping mips_clockevent_device statically allocated as per-CPU makes sense.
Less for the struct irqaction and he'll have to allocate one for each
VPE (think CPU) he installs a clockevent device on.
Running everything from late_time_init() instead allows the use of kmalloc.
X86 has the same issue with requiring kmalloc in time_init which is why
they had moved everything to late_time_init.
So the real question is, why can't we just move the call of time_init()
in setup_kernel() to where late_time_init() is getting called from for
all architectures, does anything rely on it getting called early?
Ralf
--
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