2015-05-19 10:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On 05/18/2015 04:03 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >> >> 2015-05-18 15:10 GMT+02:00 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> >>> On 05/09/2015 09:53 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> STM32 MCUs feature 16 and 32 bits general purpose timers with >>>> prescalers. >>>> The drivers detects whether the time is 16 or 32 bits, and applies a >>>> 1024 prescaler value if it is 16 bits. >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Tested-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@xxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/clocksource/Kconfig | 8 ++ >>>> drivers/clocksource/Makefile | 1 + >>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-stm32.c | 184 >>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> 3 files changed, 193 insertions(+) >>>> create mode 100644 drivers/clocksource/timer-stm32.c >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig >>>> index bf9364c..2443520 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig >>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig >>>> @@ -106,6 +106,14 @@ config CLKSRC_EFM32 >>>> Support to use the timers of EFM32 SoCs as clock source and >>>> clock >>>> event device. >>>> >>>> +config CLKSRC_STM32 >>>> + bool "Clocksource for STM32 SoCs" if !ARCH_STM32 >>>> + depends on OF && ARM && (ARCH_STM32 || COMPILE_TEST) >>> >>> >>> >>> Are the interactive bool and the 'COMPILE_TEST' necessary ? >>> >> >> The interactive bool is necessary if we want to be able to >> select/deselect it in COMPILE_TEST configuration. >> And personnaly, I think COMPILE_TEST use makes sense. >> >> Note that other timer drivers are doing the same thing today >> (CLKSRC_EFM32, SH_TIMER_CMT, EM_TIMER_STI...). >> >> Do you have a specific concern regarding COMPILE_TEST? > > > Actually, we try to keep the timer selection non-interactive and let the > platform's Kconfig to select the timer. Ok. > > I like when the code is consistent. The COMPILE_TEST was introduced and > created a precedence. I would like to get rid of the interactive timer > selection but I did not have time to go through this yet. Indeed, consistency is important. On my side, I don't have a strong opinion regarding the COMPILE_TEST thing. IMHO, it is more a subsystem's maintainer choice. So, if as a maintainer you don't use it and prefer not supporting it, I'm fine to provide you a new version without COMPILE_TEST. Doing that, the interactive selection will disappear too. I can provide you a new version this evenning. Best regards, Maxime > > > > -- > <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs > > Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | > <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | > <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
