Hi Linus,
Sorry for the late reply.
On 2014年01月22日 16:26, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
This macro does the same job as CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE. The device
name from the ACPI timer table is matched with all the registered
timer controllers and matching initialisation routine is invoked.
Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
Actually I have a fat patch renaming CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE()
to TIMER_OF_DECLARE() and I think this macro, if needed, should
be named TIMER_ACPI_DECLARE().
The reason is that "clocksource" is a Linux-internal name and this
macro pertains to the hardware name in respective system
description type.
That make sense to me too, I will update in next version if
this patch is still needed.
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
+#define CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE(name, compat, fn) \
+ static const struct acpi_device_id __clksrc_acpi_table_##name \
+ __used __section(__clksrc_acpi_table) \
+ = { .id = compat, \
+ .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)fn }
+#else
+#define CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE(name, compat, fn)
+#endif
This hammers down the world to compile one binary for ACPI
and one binary for device tree. Maybe that's fine, I don't know.
This is a problem we can have some discussion on it.
I prefer mutually exclusive ACPI and DT support.
Thanks
Hanjun
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
