Hi Mark,
On 20 March 2017 at 15:36, Fu Wei <fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 18 March 2017 at 02:05, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:03AM +0800, fu.wei@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_sysreg_freq(void)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of sysreg.
>>> + */
>>> + return arch_timer_get_cntfrq();
>>> +}
>>
>> We already have arch_timer_get_cntfrq(), so I don't see the point in
>> this wrapper.
>>
>>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_mmio_freq(void __iomem *cntbase)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of timer frame registers.
>>> + * Note: please verify cntbase in caller.
>>> + */
>>> + return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
>>> +}
>>
>> Wrapping the MMIO read makes sense if we're going to do this in more
>> than one place, so I'm happy with this wrapper.
>>
>> If you can s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_cntfrq/, and drop
>
> sorry, May I guess that is
> "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_mmio_cntfrq/"
> or
> "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq/"
>
> which one do you prefer? :-)
keeping using arch_timer_get_cntfrq(); for per-CPU arch timer, then
+static u32 arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq(void __iomem *cntbase)
+{
+ return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
+}
+
Is that OK for you?
>
>> the comments, then this looks fine to me.
>>
>> 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
