On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 22:28 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 03:58:40PM +0800, Andrew Jeffery wrote: > > Also clean up space-before-tab issues in the documentation. > > Andrew, > > I reworked the patch to apply to the changes Linus did recently to convert to > the fttrm010 driver. > > Please have a look at: > > https://git.linaro.org/people/daniel.lezcano/linux.git/commit/?h=clockevents/4.13&id=3ca904162ffdd72f4fad3ab731fc94a12c50f682 > I think we're going to run into trouble here: https://git.linaro.org/people/daniel.lezcano/linux.git/tree/drivers/clocksource/timer-fttmr010.c?h=clockevents/4.13&id=3ca904162ffdd72f4fad3ab731fc94a12c50f682#n260 As it stands if a aspeed,ast2500-timer compatible is provided we'll take the else branch and hit the issues Joel found with Linus' original series counting up on the Aspeed hardware. My change was somewhat cosmetic - Ben (now Cc'ed) didn't seemed too concerned about using the the aspeed,ast2400-timer compatible string for ast2500 dts. My motivation for the patch was that by describing the aspeed,ast2500-timer compatible it signals that someone had taken a look and judged it so. However, my point is maybe one solution is simply to drop the patch and continue to use aspeed,ast2400-timer compatible where we need. Another is to rework your change to switch to of_device_compatible_match() in drivers/clocksource/timer-fttmr010.c and also check against aspeed,ast2500-timer. What direction should we go? > Shouldn't the compatible string be: > > "aspeed,ast2400-timer", "faraday,fttmr010" > "aspeed,ast2500-timer", "faraday,fttmr010" > Does it makes sense in the face of the Aspeed quirks? If so it seems reasonable, but falling back to the faraday,fttmr010 compatible could lead to failures (if the compatible driver counted up). Cheers, Andrew > > -- Daniel >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
