> On 02/03/2014 02:16 PM, Andrew Chew wrote: > >> On 02/03/2014 11:59 AM, Andrew Chew wrote: > >>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 09:46:51PM +0000, Andrew Chew wrote: > >>>>> This optional property can be used to specify which timers are to > >>>>> be used for hardware watchdog timeouts (via a tegra wdt driver). > >>>> > >>>> Is there any reason that a particular timer should be used? > >>> > >>> I worry about colliding with other timer allocations, and wanted to > >>> be flexible in this regard. > >> > >> Are the other timer allocations represented in DT, or simply made by > >> or hard- coded in the driver? If the former, this property seems like > >> a good equivalent of any existing allocations. If the latter, can't > >> the driver just allocate or hard- code the allocation in the same way as any > existing allocations? > > > > From what I've seen, timer allocations are just hard-coded into whatever > driver. > > I didn't think this was a particularly good idea, since when writing > > other drivers that for some reason need a timer, the author has to be > > aware of allocations made in other, barely related drivers. > > I'm not sure that they would; why wouldn't the timer driver register the > various timers with standard Linux APIs which the clients talk to, thus > avoiding the clients having any knowledge at all of which channels are used > for what. > > If you're talking about the watchdog driver, then can't we just create a > shared header file that the clocksource and watchdog drivers both include, > which defines the timer ID allocations? Sure, let's go with that. In that case, this patch isn't needed, and should be dropped. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
