[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <EA64873A-7F03-4095-BE38-939183B6457E@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 19:45:10 +0300
From: Alexander Kochetkov <al.kochet@...il.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
LAK <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Caesar Wang <wxt@...k-chips.com>,
Huang Tao <huangtao@...k-chips.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] clocksource/drivers/rockchip_timer: split bc_timer into rk_timer and rk_clock_event_device
Daniel, thanks for reviewing patches!
> 23 янв. 2017 г., в 19:26, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> написал(а):
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 07:14:49PM +0300, Alexander Kochetkov wrote:
>> The patch move ce field out of struct bc_timer into struct
>> rk_clock_event_device and rename struct bc_timer to struct rk_timer.
>
> Why ?
Single rockchip timer can be either broadcast timer/clockevent (current implementation) or
clocksource (the one I’ve implemented in series). Both implementations based on
low level timer routines (rk_timer_disable, rk_timer_enable, rk_timer_update_counter,
rk_timer_counter_read and so on). Both implementations use timers in different modes
(interrupts vs free running). In order to distinguish this concepts I tried to split
low level timer routines from bc_timer.
Otherwise I can place all needed clocksource filelds into 'struct bc_timer’ and rename 'struct bc_timer’
into 'struct rk_timer’. If this is more clear solution I can rewrite patches.
Alexander.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists