[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <643E69AA4436674C8F39DCC2C05F7638631998539D@HQMAIL03.nvidia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 13:29:33 -0800
From: Andrew Chew <AChew@...dia.com>
To: Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC: "robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
"galak@...eaurora.org" <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"rob@...dley.net" <rob@...dley.net>,
"thierry.reding@...il.com" <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
"abrestic@...omium.org" <abrestic@...omium.org>,
"dgreid@...omium.org" <dgreid@...omium.org>,
"katierh@...omium.org" <katierh@...omium.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org" <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v1] ARM: tegra: add nvidia,wdt-timer-id optional property
> On 02/03/2014 02:16 PM, Andrew Chew wrote:
> >> On 02/03/2014 11:59 AM, Andrew Chew wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:46:51PM +0000, Andrew Chew wrote:
> >>>>> This optional property can be used to specify which timers are to
> >>>>> be used for hardware watchdog timeouts (via a tegra wdt driver).
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there any reason that a particular timer should be used?
> >>>
> >>> I worry about colliding with other timer allocations, and wanted to
> >>> be flexible in this regard.
> >>
> >> Are the other timer allocations represented in DT, or simply made by
> >> or hard- coded in the driver? If the former, this property seems like
> >> a good equivalent of any existing allocations. If the latter, can't
> >> the driver just allocate or hard- code the allocation in the same way as any
> existing allocations?
> >
> > From what I've seen, timer allocations are just hard-coded into whatever
> driver.
> > I didn't think this was a particularly good idea, since when writing
> > other drivers that for some reason need a timer, the author has to be
> > aware of allocations made in other, barely related drivers.
>
> I'm not sure that they would; why wouldn't the timer driver register the
> various timers with standard Linux APIs which the clients talk to, thus
> avoiding the clients having any knowledge at all of which channels are used
> for what.
>
> If you're talking about the watchdog driver, then can't we just create a
> shared header file that the clocksource and watchdog drivers both include,
> which defines the timer ID allocations?
Sure, let's go with that. In that case, this patch isn't needed, and should be
dropped.
--
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