Hi Mark, On 28 March 2017 at 21:05, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 08:34:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote: >> Hi Jon, >> >> Thanks for your email >> An hour ago, I just got some feedback from Lorenzo, will update my >> patchset ASAP according to his suggestion. >> >> But I still need some feedback form Mark, I can see some progress here: >> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arch-timer/gtdt >> >> I guess I should rebase my patchset to his gtdt branch for v23. >> >> So now, I am waiting for Mark's feedback to move on. > > Sorry for the delay; I have not had the time to focus on this as I would > like to. I'm happy with patches 1-4, but from patch 5 onwards, there's > one change I'd like to see. > > I'd prefer that mmio timer frame rame N was always stored at > arch_timer_mem::frame[N], rather than arch_timer_mem::frame[] being in > an arbitrary order. That will make arch_timer_mem_frame::frame_nr > redundant. > > To allow arch_timer_mem::frame[] this to be sparse, I'm happy to have a > bool arch_timer_mem_frame::valid field that we set when probing each > frame. Then we don't need arch_timer_mem::num_frames. > > This will make iterating over the frames far less confusing, and makes > it simple to detect when a frame number is erroneously reused. > > Otherwise, I'm largely happy to pick the rest and apply any fixups > myself. Great thanks for your feedback! I will follow your suggestion to improve my patches, then post it in a day. So I will rebase my patchset on arch-timer/gtdt branch of your REPO https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arch-timer/gtdt > > Thanks, > Mark. -- 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
