[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120423071013.GS26306@S2101-09.ap.freescale.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 15:10:15 +0800
From: Shawn Guo <shawn.guo@...aro.org>
To: Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>
Cc: Rob Lee <rob.lee@...aro.org>,
Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@...aro.org>,
kernel@...gutronix.de, linaro-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
patches@...aro.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] ARM: imx: Add common imx cpuidle init functionality.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:56:23AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:53:01PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:27:39AM +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 01:18:21PM +0800, Shawn Guo wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 11:44:39PM -0500, Rob Lee wrote:
...
> > > > > Since device_initcall isn't platform specific, it seems I would still
> > > > > need a cpu_is_imx6q() function or similiar functionality from a device
> > > > > tree call. Or do you have something else in mind that I'm not seeing?
> > > > >
> > > > I guess Sascha is asking for something like the following.
> > > >
> > > > static int __init imx_device_init(void)
> > > > {
> > > > imx5_device_init();
> > > > imx6_device_init();
> > > > }
> > > > device_initcall(imx_device_init)
> > > >
> > > > static int __init imx6_device_init(void)
> > > > {
> > > > /*
> > > > * do whatever needs to get done in device_initcall time
> > > > */
> > > > }
> > >
> > > The problem is more how we can detect that we are actually running a
> > > i.MX6 SoC. We could directly ask the devicetree in an initcall or we
> > > could introduce a cpu_is_mx6() just like we have a macro for all other
> > > i.MX SoCs.
> > >
> > Oops, my reply was a brain-dead one. Hmm, then it seems that we have
> > to introduce cpu_is_mx6() which I tried hard to avoid. I do not have
> > a preference between defining a macro and asking device tree.
>
> Since we already have a place in early setup code in which we know that
> we are running on an i.MX6 I suggest for the sake of the symmetry of the
> universe that we introduce a cpu_is_mx6.
>
Let me try last time. What about having a late_initcall hook in
machine_desc?
Regards,
Shawn
8<---
diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
index d7692ca..0b1c94b 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/mach/arch.h
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ struct machine_desc {
void (*init_irq)(void);
struct sys_timer *timer; /* system tick timer */
void (*init_machine)(void);
+ void (*init_late)(void);
#ifdef CONFIG_MULTI_IRQ_HANDLER
void (*handle_irq)(struct pt_regs *);
#endif
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
index ebfac78..549f036 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
@@ -800,6 +800,14 @@ static int __init customize_machine(void)
}
arch_initcall(customize_machine);
+static int __init init_machine_late(void)
+{
+ if (machine_desc->init_late)
+ machine_desc->init_late();
+ return 0;
+}
+late_initcall(init_machine_late);
+
#ifdef CONFIG_KEXEC
static inline unsigned long long get_total_mem(void)
{
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c
index da6c1d9..0e3640f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-imx/mach-imx6q.c
@@ -142,6 +142,7 @@ DT_MACHINE_START(IMX6Q, "Freescale i.MX6 Quad (Device Tree)")
.handle_irq = imx6q_handle_irq,
.timer = &imx6q_timer,
.init_machine = imx6q_init_machine,
+ .init_late = imx6q_init_late,
.dt_compat = imx6q_dt_compat,
.restart = imx6q_restart,
MACHINE_END
--
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