On 17/06/2019 15:04, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 17.06.2019 13:51, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>
>> On 14/06/2019 17:45, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> 14.06.2019 18:48, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/06/2019 17:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>> The of_clk structure has a period field that is set up initially by
>>>>> timer_of_clk_init(), that period value need to be adjusted for a case of
>>>>> TIMER1-9 that are running at a fixed rate that doesn't match the clock's
>>>>> rate. Note that the period value is currently used only by some of the
>>>>> clocksource drivers internally and hence this is just a minor cleanup
>>>>> change that doesn't fix anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c | 5 +++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>> index 810b4e7435cf..646b3530c2d2 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static int tegra_timer_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>>>> static int tegra_timer_set_periodic(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>>>> {
>>>>> void __iomem *reg_base = timer_of_base(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>>> + unsigned long period = timer_of_period(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>>>
>>>>> - writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER |
>>>>> - ((timer_of_rate(to_timer_of(evt)) / HZ) - 1),
>>>>> + writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER | (period - 1),
>>>>> reg_base + TIMER_PTV);
>>>>>
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ static int __init tegra_init_timer(struct device_node *np, bool tegra20,
>>>>> cpu_to->clkevt.rating = rating;
>>>>> cpu_to->clkevt.cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
>>>>> cpu_to->of_base.base = timer_reg_base + base;
>>>>> + cpu_to->of_clk.period = DIV_ROUND_UP(rate, HZ);
>>>>
>>>> Any reason you made this a round-up?
>>>
>>> That's what timer_of_clk_init() does, I assume it should be a more correct variant.
>>
>> Sounds to me like this should be 2 patches, because you are changing the
>> value. This is not just purely cleanup IMO.
>
> Indeed, that could be at least mentioned in the commit message. Probably I just
> assumed that this is such a minor change that not worth anything. A hundred of
> microseconds is hardly noticeable.
>
> I'm not really sure if this really worth a re-spin at this point. Jon, are you insisting?
At a minimum the changelog needs to be udpated to reflect what is going
on here. Yes it may not be a massive difference, but I prefer not to
change things without any rationale.
Cheers
Jon
--
nvpublic
