Hi Mark,
On 17 January 2017 at 18:30, Fu Wei <fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 17 January 2017 at 02:30, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:45:58PM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> The patch refactor original memory-mapped timer init code:
>>> (1) Refactor "arch_timer_mem_init", make it become a common code for
>>> memory-mapped timer init.
>>> (2) Add a new function "arch_timer_mem_of_init" for DT init.
>>
>> As a general note, please write proper commit messages, describing what
>> the problem is, and why we are making the changes. These bullet points
>> don't add anything to what can be derived from a glance at the code.
>>
>> For this patch, you can use:
>>
>> clocksource: arm_arch_timer: refactor MMIO timer probing
>>
>> Currently the code to probe MMIO architected timers mixes DT parsing
>> with actual poking of hardware. This makes the code harder than
>> necessary to understand, and makes it difficult to add support for
>> probing via ACPI.
>>
>> This patch factors all the DT-specific logic out of
>> arch_timer_mem_init(), into a new function, arch_timer_mem_of_init().
>> The former pokes the hardware and determines the suitablility of
>> frames based on a datastructure populated by the latter.
>>
>> This cleanly separates the two and will make it possible to add
>> probing using the ACPI GTDT in subsequent patches.
>
> Great thanks for this upstream tip.
> I have used your example commit message instead.
> It will be in v20.
>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, frame_node) {
>>> + int n;
>>> + struct arch_timer_mem_frame *frame = &timer_mem->frame[i];
>>> +
>>> + if (of_property_read_u32(frame_node, "frame-number", &n)) {
>>> + pr_err("Missing frame-number\n");
>>> + of_node_put(frame_node);
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> + frame->frame_nr = n;
>>> +
>>> + if (of_address_to_resource(frame_node, 0, &res)) {
>>> + of_node_put(frame_node);
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> + frame->cntbase = res.start;
>>> + frame->size = resource_size(&res);
>>> +
>>> + frame->virt_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(frame_node,
>>> + ARCH_TIMER_VIRT_SPI);
>>> + frame->phys_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(frame_node,
>>> + ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_SPI);
>>>
>>> - if (!arch_timer_needs_of_probing())
>>> + if (++i >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES)
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>
>> It would be good if we could warn upon seeing more than
>> ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES children, since that's obviously an error.
>
> OK, NP, will use
>
> if (i >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES) {
> pr_err(FW_BUG "too many frames, ARMv8 spec only allows 8.\n");
Sorry, this should be "ARM spec only allows 8.\n"
Not only ARMv8, but also ARMv7
> goto out;
> }
>
> at the beginning of this loop.
>
> Here will be replaced by i++;
>
> Great thanks for your suggestion!
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Fu Wei
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat
--
Best regards,
Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat
--
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
