Hi Simon,
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 11:59 AM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:33:17AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:19 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> > <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 10:08 AM Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 06:08:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > > R-Mobile APE6, R-Car Gen2, and RZ/G1 SoCs have Cortex-A7 and/or
> > > > > Cortex-A15 CPU cores, all of which have ARM architectured timers.
> > > > >
> > > > > Force use of the ARM architectured timer on these SoCs.
> > > > > This allows to:
> > > > > - Remove the calls to shmobile_init_delay() from the corresponding
> > > > > machine vectors,
> > > > > - Remove a check in timer setup specific to R-Car Gen2,
> > > > > - Remove a check in shmobile_init_delay().
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > on which boards did you test this?
> > >
> > > On APE6EVM and Koelsch (R-Car M2-W).
> > > I can give it a spin on a few more remote R-Car Gen2 boards if you want.
> >
> > I don't expect any issues, as shmobile_defconfig already enables
> > CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER, and shmobile_init_delay() was already
> > a no-op in that case.
>
> I am happy if you are happy.
> Shall I go ahead and apply this?
Yes, selecting HAVE_ARM_ARCH_TIMER is consistent with what several
other SoCs are already doing, and it leads to less code.
> Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <horms+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
