LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com, alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com
Cc: mark.rutland@arm.com, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com,
	robh+dt@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, arnd.bergmann@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] clocksource/drivers/timer-microchip-pit64b: add Microchip PIT64B support
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2019 10:53:35 +0200
Message-ID: <845acd59-665a-4d0a-3da8-2ba605600928@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5e3d783e-7bcc-64c1-c814-eaf99a6aa205@microchip.com>


Hi Claudiu,

sorry for the late reply.


On 13/06/2019 16:12, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> On 31.05.2019 13:41, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>
>> Hi Claudiu,
>>
>>
>> On 30/05/2019 09:46, Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com wrote:
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> Taking into account the discussion on this tread and the fact that we have
>>> no answer from Rob on this topic (I'm talking about [1]), what do you think
>>> it would be best for this driver to be accepted the soonest? Would it be OK
>>> for you to mimic the approach done by:
>>>
>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-integrator-ap.c
>>>
>>> with the following bindings in DT:
>>>
>>> aliases {
>>> 	arm,timer-primary = &timer2;
>>> 	arm,timer-secondary = &timer1;
>>> };
>>>
>>> also in PIT64B driver?
>>>
>>> Or do you think re-spinning the Alexandre's patches at [2] (which seems to
>>> me like the generic way to do it) would be better?
>>
>> This hardware / OS connection problem is getting really annoying for
>> everyone and this pattern is repeating itself since several years. It is
>> time we fix it properly.
>>
>> The first solution looks hackish from my POV. The second approach looks
>> nicer and generic as you say. So I would vote for [2]
>> flagging approach proposed by Mark [3].
> 
> With this flagging approach this would mean a kind unification of
> clocksource and clockevent functionalities under a single one, right? So
> that the driver would register to the above layers only one device w/ 2
> functionalities (clocksource and clockevent)? Please correct me if I'm
> wrong? If so, from my point of view this would require major re-working of
> clocksource and clockevent subsystems. Correctly if I wrongly understood,
> please.

Well, actually I was not expecting to change all the framework but just
pass a flag to the probe function telling if the node is for a
clocksource, a clockevent or both.



> At the moment we register different functionalities (clocksource and
> clockevent) to the above layers for hardware blocks (e.g. with
> clocksource_register_hz() or clockevents_config_and_register()). If
> hardware can support clocksource and clockevent we register both these
> functionalities, if only one is supported we register only one of these.
> The above layers would choose the best clocksource/clockevent device from
> the available ones based on rating field for each clocksource/clockevent we
> register. In all this current behavior I don't see how these flags would
> interact with clocksource/clockevent subsystem. Could you please let me
> know how do you see these and the way these new flags would interact with
> the layers above the drivers?
>>
>> I added Arnd in Cc in order to have its opinion.
>>
>> [3]
>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20171215113242.skmh5nzr7wqdmvnw@lakrids.cambridge.arm.com/
>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20190408151155.20279-1-alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com/#t
>>> [2]
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20171213185313.20017-1-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com/
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>


-- 
 <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


  reply index

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-03-14 16:26 [PATCH 0/2] add Microchip PIT64B timer Claudiu.Beznea
2019-03-14 16:26 ` [PATCH 1/5] dt-bindings: arm: atmel: add bindings for PIT64B Claudiu.Beznea
2019-03-31  6:40   ` Rob Herring
2019-04-01  8:41   ` Nicolas.Ferre
2019-03-14 16:26 ` [PATCH 2/5] clocksource/drivers/timer-microchip-pit64b: add Microchip PIT64B support Claudiu.Beznea
2019-04-01  8:40   ` Nicolas.Ferre
2019-04-08  8:43   ` Daniel Lezcano
2019-04-08 11:48     ` Claudiu.Beznea
2019-04-08 12:11     ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-04-08 12:35       ` Daniel Lezcano
2019-04-08 12:42         ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-04-08 13:22           ` Daniel Lezcano
2019-04-08 14:01             ` Alexandre Belloni
2019-05-30  7:46       ` Claudiu.Beznea
2019-05-31 10:41         ` Daniel Lezcano
2019-06-13 14:12           ` Claudiu.Beznea
2019-06-20  8:53             ` Daniel Lezcano [this message]
2019-06-21 10:34               ` Claudiu.Beznea
2019-06-24  8:06                 ` Daniel Lezcano
2019-03-14 16:26 ` [PATCH 3/5] MAINTAINERS: change section name to be more generic Claudiu.Beznea
2019-04-01  8:41   ` Nicolas.Ferre
2019-03-14 16:26 ` [PATCH 4/5] MAINTAINERS: add myself as maintainer Claudiu.Beznea
2019-04-01  8:41   ` Nicolas.Ferre
2019-03-14 16:26 ` [PATCH 5/5] MAINTAINERS: add timer-microchip-pit64c.c Claudiu.Beznea
2019-04-01  8:41   ` Nicolas.Ferre

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=845acd59-665a-4d0a-3da8-2ba605600928@linaro.org \
    --to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --cc=Claudiu.Beznea@microchip.com \
    --cc=Ludovic.Desroches@microchip.com \
    --cc=alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com \
    --cc=arnd.bergmann@linaro.org \
    --cc=devicetree@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=robh+dt@kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0 lkml/git/0.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/1 lkml/git/1.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/2 lkml/git/2.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3 lkml/git/3.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4 lkml/git/4.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5 lkml/git/5.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/6 lkml/git/6.git
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/7 lkml/git/7.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 lkml lkml/ https://lore.kernel.org/lkml \
		linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index lkml

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git