linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v5 5/8] clocksource/drivers/rockchip_timer: split bc_timer into rk_timer and rk_clock_event

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:20:04 +0100
From:   Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To:     Alexander Kochetkov <al.kochet@...il.com>
Cc:     Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
        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>,
        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 v5 5/8] clocksource/drivers/rockchip_timer: split
 bc_timer into rk_timer and rk_clock_event_device

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:55:33PM +0300, Alexander Kochetkov wrote:
> 
> > 30 янв. 2017 г., в 16:12, Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org> написал(а):
> > 
> > I don't get the point of these changes. The patch does not explain why they are
> > needed.
> 
> I’d like to extract timer API from current implementation.
> And to make code more readable I’d like to introduce 'struct rk_timer’ what can be
> reused with current implementation and with my patch (8/8). And in order keep patches
> simple and readable I split that into three patches: 5/8, 6/8, 7/8.
> 
> Current implementation named rockchip timer as ‘struct bc_timer’ (broadcast timer).
> I renamed it to more suitable to it role (may be bad choice).
> 
> Yes, the patch itself looks strange. You are right.
> 
> What do you think about that solution:
> - in the patch 6/8 i will Introduce 'struct rk_timer’ and 'struct rk_time_clkevt’ (renamed ‘struct bc_timer’).

I prefer rk_clksrc and rk_clkevt.

> - rk_timer_init() changes from 5/8 I will merge with 8/8
> - 8/8 introduce 'struct rk_time_clksrc' 
> - 5/8 drop

Ok, let's see what that gives.

  -- Daniel

-- 

 <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog