All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: pdeschrijver@nvidia.com (Peter De Schrijver)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Clock register in early init
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:15:32 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120522111532.GH8730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJOA=zNoj1nZ+zVURfhziqFem4F7_Y_B8s=Gp1Aptr0hgfj6Xw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 08:05:57PM +0200, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Peter De Schrijver
> <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On OMAP I think the only "gotcha" is setting up the timer. ?One
> >> solution is to open code the register reads and the rate calculation
> >> in the timer code. ?That is ugly... but it works.
> >>
> >> > Which advantages do you see in dynamically allocating all this?
> >> >
> >>
> >> There are many but I'll name a couple. ?The most significant point is
> >> that we can avoid exposing the definition of struct clk if we
> >> dynamically allocate stuff. ?One can use struct clk_hw_init to
> >> statically initialize data, or instead rely on direct calls to
> >> clk_register with a bunch of parameters.
> >>
> >
> > Which means if you make a mistake in specifying parents for example, it will
> > only fail at runtime, possibly before any console is active. With static
> > initialization, this will fail at compiletime. Much easier to debug.
> >
> 
> Is this really a problem?  Once you have good data it does not change.
>  Debugging bad data when introducing a new chip is just a fact of
> life.  Static versus dynamic is irrelevant here.
> 

I think it is a problem yes, especially when the tree becomes more
complicated.

Cheers,

Peter.

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter De Schrijver <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com>
To: "Turquette, Mike" <mturquette@ti.com>
Cc: Prashant Gaikwad <pgaikwad@nvidia.com>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: Clock register in early init
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:15:32 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120522111532.GH8730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJOA=zNoj1nZ+zVURfhziqFem4F7_Y_B8s=Gp1Aptr0hgfj6Xw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 08:05:57PM +0200, Turquette, Mike wrote:
> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Peter De Schrijver
> <pdeschrijver@nvidia.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On OMAP I think the only "gotcha" is setting up the timer.  One
> >> solution is to open code the register reads and the rate calculation
> >> in the timer code.  That is ugly... but it works.
> >>
> >> > Which advantages do you see in dynamically allocating all this?
> >> >
> >>
> >> There are many but I'll name a couple.  The most significant point is
> >> that we can avoid exposing the definition of struct clk if we
> >> dynamically allocate stuff.  One can use struct clk_hw_init to
> >> statically initialize data, or instead rely on direct calls to
> >> clk_register with a bunch of parameters.
> >>
> >
> > Which means if you make a mistake in specifying parents for example, it will
> > only fail at runtime, possibly before any console is active. With static
> > initialization, this will fail at compiletime. Much easier to debug.
> >
> 
> Is this really a problem?  Once you have good data it does not change.
>  Debugging bad data when introducing a new chip is just a fact of
> life.  Static versus dynamic is irrelevant here.
> 

I think it is a problem yes, especially when the tree becomes more
complicated.

Cheers,

Peter.

  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-22 11:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <1337227884.2066.9.camel@pgaikwad-dt2>
     [not found] ` <20120517062131.GA9305@gmail.com>
2012-05-18  4:48   ` Clock register in early init Prashant Gaikwad
2012-05-18  4:48     ` Prashant Gaikwad
2012-05-18 11:21     ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-18 11:21       ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-18 20:17       ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-18 20:17         ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-21  8:46         ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-21  8:46           ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-21 18:05           ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-21 18:05             ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-22 11:15             ` Peter De Schrijver [this message]
2012-05-22 11:15               ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-22  9:20           ` Ben Dooks
2012-05-22  9:20             ` Ben Dooks
2012-05-22 12:08             ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-22 12:08               ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-22 17:37               ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-22 17:37                 ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-23  9:19                 ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-23  9:19                   ` Peter De Schrijver
2012-05-23 16:20                   ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-23 16:20                     ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-24  1:02                 ` Paul Mundt
2012-05-24  1:02                   ` Paul Mundt
2012-05-24 15:51                   ` Turquette, Mike
2012-05-24 15:51                     ` Turquette, Mike

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120522111532.GH8730@tbergstrom-lnx.Nvidia.com \
    --to=pdeschrijver@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.