[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201102210936.42098.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 09:36:41 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: John Linn <John.Linn@...inx.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux@....linux.org.uk, catalin.marinas@....com,
glikely@...retlab.ca, jamie@...ieiles.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 3/4] ARM: Xilinx: base header files and assembly macros
On Monday 21 February 2011, John Linn wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/timex.h
> > b/arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/timex.h
> > > new file mode 100644
> > > index 0000000..4ebc0a6
> > > --- /dev/null
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-xilinx/include/mach/timex.h
> > > +#ifndef __MACH_TIMEX_H__
> > > +#define __MACH_TIMEX_H__
> > > +
> > > +#define PERIPHERAL_CLOCK_RATE 2500000
> > > +
> > > +#define CLOCK_TICK_RATE (PERIPHERAL_CLOCK_RATE / 32)
> > > +
> > > +#endif
> >
> > I thought we were at the point where CLOCK_TICK_RATE is no longer
> used.
>
> The timer code in these patches is using it, no other comments on it so
> far.
>
> > Did the patches not make it in yet?
> >
>
> I haven't heard they made them in yet, just waiting and hoping for an
> ack.
I meant the patches removing CLOCK_TICK_RATE from common code, not your
patches, sorry for being vague.
It would be better if you could avoid introducing new uses of
CLOCK_TICK_RATE, because that will have to be removed before we can
move to a real multi-platform kernel. For instance, you can put
PERIPHERAL_CLOCK_RATE in a hardware specific header and put a bogus
definition for CLOCK_TICK_RATE into timex.h
Arnd
--
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