[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DB6PR0501MB2518A9D069CA95DE52F4A698AAD30@DB6PR0501MB2518.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:32:35 +0000
From: Noam Camus <noamca@...lanox.com>
To: Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>
CC: "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
"daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 3/3] clocksource: Add clockevent support to NPS400 driver
> From: Rob Herring [mailto:robh@...nel.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 4:57 PM
>>
>> Driver can be used from device tree by:
>> compatible = "ezchip,nps400-timer0" <-- for clocksource compatible =
>> "ezchip,nps400-timer1" <-- for clockevent
>You're letting Linux details define the binding. Are these blocks different (the block itself, not connections to >the block like interrupts)?
>If you need a particular timer instance to be used, then describe whatever is the difference in the h/w. For >example, the clockevent timer has to be the timer with an interrupt.
Yes, blocks are different.
The difference is that only second timer instance are actually producing timer interrupt served by Linux for the clockevent framework.
Please note that the numbering used here for timer (i.e. 0 or 1) are derived from HW blocks and are not any Linux detail I used for binding definition (It is a note at this patch set cover letter).
Noam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists