On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 12:12:14PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > 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! Thanks, applied.
