On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 07:18:07AM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > On 11.09.2019 03:03, Linus Walleij wrote: > > External E-Mail > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:11 PM Alexandre Belloni > > <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On 10/09/2019 16:08:26+0100, Sudeep Holla wrote: > >>> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 02:51:50PM +0000, Claudiu.Beznea@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > >>> In that case, why can't we identify capability that with the compatibles > >>> for this timer IP ? > >>> > >>> IOW, I don't like the proposal as it's hardware limitation. > >> > >> To be clear, bot timers are exactly the same but can't be clocksource > >> and clockevent at the same time. Why would we have different compatibles > >> for the exact same IP? > > > > In that case why not just pick the first one you find as clocksource > > and the second one as clock event? As they all come to the > > same timer of init function two simple local state variables can > > solve that: > > > > static bool registered_clocksource; > > static bool registered_clockevent; > > > > probe(timer) { > > if (!registered_clocksource) { > > register_clocksource(timer); > > registrered_clocksource = true; > > return; > > } > > if (!registered_clockevent) { > > register_clockevent(timer); > > registered_clockevent = true; > > return; > > } > > pr_info("surplus timer %p\n", timer); > > } > > > > That was also my proposal for the driver I'm sending this series for (see > [1]) but it has been proposed to implement a mechanism similar to this one > in this series (see [2] and [3]). This comes up over and over, and the answer is still no. Either each block is identical and doesn't matter which one is used for what or there is some h/w difference that you should describe. If you want something that would even be considered to put into DT, then define something BSD or other OS's could use too. (That's not a suggestion to respin this with generalized names.) Rob _______________________________________________ linux-unisoc mailing list linux-unisoc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-unisoc