[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87h91pkr0w.fsf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 04:47:11 +0200
From: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Cc: Nicolai Stange <nicstange@...il.com>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] microblaze/timer: set ->min_delta_ticks and ->max_delta_ticks
Hello Daniel,
On Fri, Apr 07 2017, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 09:45:28PM +0200, Nicolai Stange wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/microblaze/kernel/timer.c b/arch/microblaze/kernel/timer.c
>> index 999066192715..545ccd46edb3 100644
>> --- a/arch/microblaze/kernel/timer.c
>> +++ b/arch/microblaze/kernel/timer.c
>> @@ -178,8 +178,10 @@ static __init int xilinx_clockevent_init(void)
>> clockevent_xilinx_timer.shift);
>> clockevent_xilinx_timer.max_delta_ns =
>> clockevent_delta2ns((u32)~0, &clockevent_xilinx_timer);
>> + clockevent_xilinx_timer.max_delta_ticks = (u32)~0;
>
> Can you take the opportunity to fix the type (unsigned long) ?
Hmm, I personally think that it'd be better to leave the u32 there as it
corresponds to the hardware's counter width?
clockevent_delta2ns()' latch argument has been of type unsigned long
from the beginning and this might indicate that at least this
driver's original author followed this line of reasoning...
OTOH, I think that u32 is equivalent to unsigned long on microblaze, so
it doesn't matter much.
Does the above convince you or do you still want the
- clockevent_xilinx_timer.max_delta_ticks = (u32)~0;
+ clockevent_xilinx_timer.max_delta_ticks = ~0UL;
change?
Thanks,
Nicolai
Powered by blists - more mailing lists