[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <DB6PR0501MB251897240ABCBAFAA50CD925AAD30@DB6PR0501MB2518.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:51:05 +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: Noam Camus
>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 5:33 PM
>>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).
The timers actually are: first instance (timer 0) for clockevents and second instance (timer 1) for clocksource.
Sorry for the confusion.
Noam
Powered by blists - more mailing lists