[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140122114537.GA15591@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 11:45:37 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"grant.likely@...aro.org" <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>,
Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Patch Tracking <patches@...aro.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linaro-kernel <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
"linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org>,
Charles Garcia-Tobin <Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com>,
Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/20] clocksource / acpi: Add macro
CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:26:50AM +0000, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> > From: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@...sung.com>
> >
> > This macro does the same job as CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE. The device
> > name from the ACPI timer table is matched with all the registered
> > timer controllers and matching initialisation routine is invoked.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@...sung.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
>
> Actually I have a fat patch renaming CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE()
> to TIMER_OF_DECLARE() and I think this macro, if needed, should
> be named TIMER_ACPI_DECLARE().
>
> The reason is that "clocksource" is a Linux-internal name and this
> macro pertains to the hardware name in respective system
> description type.
>
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
> > +#define CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE(name, compat, fn) \
> > + static const struct acpi_device_id __clksrc_acpi_table_##name \
> > + __used __section(__clksrc_acpi_table) \
> > + = { .id = compat, \
> > + .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)fn }
> > +#else
> > +#define CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE(name, compat, fn)
> > +#endif
>
> This hammers down the world to compile one binary for ACPI
> and one binary for device tree. Maybe that's fine, I don't know.
How does it do that?
As far as I could tell CONFIG_ACPI and CONFIG_OF are not mutually
exclusive, and this just means that we only build the datastructures for
matching from ACPI when CONFIG_ACPI is enabled.
Have I missed something?
I definitely don't want to see mutually exclusive ACPI and DT support.
Cheers,
Mark.
--
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