> -----Original Message-----
> From: Menon, Nishanth
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 6:56 PM
> To: DebBarma, Tarun Kanti
> Cc: linux-omap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; R, Sricharan
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] OMAP:GPTIMER:1ms tick generation correction
>
> DebBarma, Tarun Kanti had written, on 06/21/2010 08:19 AM, the following:
> [...]
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>> arch/arm/plat-omap/dmtimer.c | 131
> >>>> +++++++++++++++++++++--------
> >>>>> arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/dmtimer.h | 1 +
> >>>>> 2 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dmtimer.c b/arch/arm/plat-
> >> omap/dmtimer.c
> >>>>> index c64875f..42344a7
> >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/dmtimer.c
> >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/dmtimer.c
> >>>>> @@ -160,6 +160,9 @@ struct omap_dm_timer {
> >>>>> unsigned reserved:1;
> >>>>> unsigned enabled:1;
> >>>>> unsigned posted:1;
> >>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2PLUS
> >>>>> + unsigned ms_correction:1;
> >>>>> +#endif
> >>>>> };
> >>>>>
> >>>>> static int dm_timer_count;
> >>>>> @@ -185,18 +188,30 @@ static const int omap1_dm_timer_count =
> >>>> ARRAY_SIZE(omap1_dm_timers);
> >>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP2
> >>>>> static struct omap_dm_timer omap2_dm_timers[] = {
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x48028000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER1 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x4802a000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER2 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x48078000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER3 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x4807a000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER4 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x4807c000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER5 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x4807e000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER6 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x48080000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER7 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x48082000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER8 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x48084000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER9 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x48086000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER10 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x48088000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER11 },
> >>>>> - { .phys_base = 0x4808a000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER12 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x48028000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER1,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x4802a000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER2,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x48078000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER3,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x4807a000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER4,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x4807c000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER5,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x4807e000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER6,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x48080000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER7,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x48082000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER8,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x48084000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER9,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x48086000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER10,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x48088000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER11,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>>> + { .phys_base = 0x4808a000, .irq = INT_24XX_GPTIMER12,
> >>>>> + .ms_correction = 0 },
> >>>> ignore of previous comments on .ms_correction initialization.
> >>>> try the output of the following code:
> >>>> struct b {
> >>>> unsigned char z:1;
> >>>> unsigned char a:1;
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> static struct b b1[2]={
> >>>> {.z =1},
> >>>> {.a = 1},
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> unsigned int main()
> >>>> {
> >>>> int i;
> >>>> for (i=0; i<2; i++)
> >>>> printf("%d: %d %d\n", i, b1[i].z, b1[i].a);
> >>>> }
> >>> This comment is not clear to me.
> >>> Are you suggesting to make the initialization of ms_correction
> variable
> >>> in a separate function instead of doing the present way?
> >> no. my suggestion is this:
> >> you dont need to do .ms_correction = 0
> >> when the variable is static - by C standards static variables are
> >> initialized to 0. so, .ms_correction = 1 alone is needed in the
> specific
> >> GPTimer cases where this is needed.
> >>
> >> the example i posted shows that it works :).
> >>
> > OK.
> > But in this case I have to re-design / re-structure the other bit fields
> > Viz. reserved, enabled, posted. Then we have to decide what to name the
> structure, etc. If you feel this is the right direction then I can go
> ahead.
> My only complaint is with the unwanted initialization.
>
> [...]
OK, I understand now!
>
> --
> Regards,
> Nishanth Menon
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
