On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:20 PM Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2020 11:34 AM
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 6:48 PM Michael Kelley <mikelley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I think this has come up before, and I still don't consider it an acceptable
> > hack to hook platform initialization code into the timer code.
> >
> > Please split out the timer into a standalone driver in drivers/clocksource
> > that can get reviewed by the clocksource maintainers.
>
> I see two related topics here.
Agreed
> First, the Hyper-V clocksource driver is
> drivers/clocksource/hyperv_timer.c. The code is architecture independent
> and is used today on the x86 side and for ARM64 in this patch series. A few
> architecture specific calls are satisfied by code under arch/x86, and in this
> patch series, under arch/arm64. Is there some aspect of this driver that
> needs reconsideration? I just want to make sure to understand what you
> are getting at.
For the clocksource driver, I would like to see the arm64 specific bits
(the code you add in arch/arm64 that are only relevant to this driver)
moved out of arch/arm64 and into drivers/clocksource, in whatever
form the clocksource maintainers prefer. I would suggest having a
separate file that can get linked along with the architecture-independent
part of that driver.
> Second is the question of where/how to do Hyper-V specific initialization.
> I agree that hanging it off the timer initialization isn't a great approach.
> Should I add a Hyper-V specific initialization call at the appropriate point
> in the ARM64 init sequence? The x86 side has some structure for handling
> multiple hypervisors, and the Hyper-V initialization code naturally plugs into
> that structure. I'm certainly open to suggestions on the best way to handle
> it for ARM64.
Yes, that is where I was getting at. Maybe the x86 abstraction for handling
multiple hypervisors can be lifted out of arch/x86/ into common code?
Arnd
