On 11/11/2012 03:16 AM, Igor Grinberg wrote: > On 11/08/12 18:20, Tony Lindgren wrote: >> * Igor Grinberg <grinberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [121107 23:15]: >>> On 11/07/12 19:33, Tony Lindgren wrote: >>>> >>>> I think this should be the default for the timers as that counter >>>> does not stop during deeper idle states. >>> >>> Well, it is the default as you can see from the patch. >>> The problem is that for boards that for some reason do not have >>> the 32k wired and rely on MPU/GP timer source, the default will not work >>> and currently there is no way for board to specify which timer source >>> it can use. >> >> Yes. I was just wondering if we can avoid patching all the board >> files by doing it the other way around by introducing a new >> omap_gp_timer rather than renaming all the existing ones? > > Is the renaming that bad? One line per machine_desc structure? > Of course we can skip the renaming, but then it will be less consistent > and will not reflect the actual timer source used. > I tried to make it flexible as much as possible and self explanatory. > So above are my considerations, but at this point in time I don't really > care if we rename them or just add a new one, but we have to get rid of > the ugly fall back. I am not sure if you guys disagree, but does it make sense to start thinking about this with regard to device-tree? With device-tree all the boards files will become obsolete and so we need to be able to handle this during boot time and not compile time. >> >>> We have discussed this in San Diego (remember?) and you actually proposed >>> this way as a solution. Well, may be I took it a bit further than you >>> thought, but this is because the board code cannot know which timer source >>> should be used at runtime and the fall back described below, does not work. >> >> Yes thanks I agree we should get rid of that Kconfig option for sure. >> >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-2430sdp.c >>>>> @@ -284,6 +284,6 @@ MACHINE_START(OMAP_2430SDP, "OMAP2430 sdp2430 board") >>>>> .handle_irq = omap2_intc_handle_irq, >>>>> .init_machine = omap_2430sdp_init, >>>>> .init_late = omap2430_init_late, >>>>> - .timer = &omap2_timer, >>>>> + .timer = &omap2_sync32k_timer, >>>>> .restart = omap_prcm_restart, >>>>> MACHINE_END >>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3430sdp.c >>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/board-3430sdp.c >>>>> @@ -596,6 +596,6 @@ MACHINE_START(OMAP_3430SDP, "OMAP3430 3430SDP board") >>>>> .handle_irq = omap3_intc_handle_irq, >>>>> .init_machine = omap_3430sdp_init, >>>>> .init_late = omap3430_init_late, >>>>> - .timer = &omap3_timer, >>>>> + .timer = &omap3_sync32k_timer, >>>>> .restart = omap_prcm_restart, >>>>> MACHINE_END >>>> ... >>>> >>>> Can't we assume that the default timer is omap[234]_sync32k_timer to >>>> avoid renaming the timer entries in all the board files? >>> >>> Hmmm... >>> How will this work with the macros defining the sys_timer structure? >>> I would also not want to hide the exact timer used under the default name. >> >> Can't you just add a new sys_timer (or a new macro) for GP only setups? > > Of course I can... but I tried to create a flexible generic code, so > no meter how a board will be wired, you just need to specify which timer source > it uses and be done with it. If you are concerned about how a board is wired up (if the 32k is present), then I think that that is best handled via device-tree and we should query device-tree on boot to see what our options are. What do you guys think? Cheers Jon -- 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
