On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:08:15PM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:20:46AM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > On 2014年01月22日 19:45, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 08:26:50AM +0000, 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.
> > >>
> > >>> +#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.
> > > How does it do that?
> > >
> > > As far as I could tell CONFIG_ACPI and CONFIG_OF are not mutually
> > > exclusive, and this just means that we only build the datastructures for
> > > matching from ACPI when CONFIG_ACPI is enabled.
> > >
> > > Have I missed something?
> > >
> > > I definitely don't want to see mutually exclusive ACPI and DT support.
> >
> > ACPI and DT did the same job so I think they should mutually exclusive.
> > if we enable both DT and ACPI in one system, this will leading confusions.
>
> ACPI and DT do similar jobs, and we should be mutually exclusive at
> runtime. However, they should not be mutually exclusive at compile-time.
>
> Being mutually exclusive at compile-time is just broken. It creates more
> work for distributions (who need to ship double the number of kernels),
> it increases the number of configurations requiring testing, and it
> makes it easier for bugs to be introduced. It's just painful, and
> there's no reason for it.
I fully agree (IOW, I'll NAK patches that break this assumption; we want
single kernel image whether it uses DT or ACPI).
> At boot time the kernel needs to decide which to use for hardware
> description, and completely ignore the other (which should not be
> present, but lets not assume that or inevitably someone will break that
> assumption for a quick hack).
>
> The same kernel should boot on a system that has a DTB or a system that
> has ACPI tables. On a system that's provided both it should use one or
> the other, but not both.
Do we still need the chosen node to be passed via DT for command line,
even if the kernel uses ACPI?
--
Catalin
--
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
