From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 4/8] ARM: Add .init_platform() callback to machine descriptor Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:12:15 +0200 Message-ID: <201306211612.15508.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1371774924-9224-1-git-send-email-tomasz.figa@gmail.com> <51C429F4.60709@arm.com> <72209947.cQvP4jsDBz@amdc1227> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:53699 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422676Ab3FUOMZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 Jun 2013 10:12:25 -0400 In-Reply-To: <72209947.cQvP4jsDBz@amdc1227> Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Figa Cc: Marc Zyngier , Tomasz Figa , "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Kukjin Kim , Olof Johansson , Mark Brown , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "grant.likely@linaro.org" , Benoit Cousson , "devicetree-discuss@lists.ozlabs.org" , Jason Cooper , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Nicolas Pitre , Russell King , Stephen Warren , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon On Friday 21 June 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > To me, this new hook is strictly equivalent to init_irq. What do we gain > > exactly? I didn't think init_irq was going away... > > > > I know init_irq is not pretty, and we tend to overload it with other > > stuff, but I don't really see the point of adding a new callback that > > has the exact same properties. > > Well, it doesn't really give us any functional benefits. > > However in my opinion it looks much saner in case of DT-only platforms that > don't need any specific IRQ initialization, but need to call some platform > specific initialization routines, after memory management, but before > anything else is initialized. > > This way irqchip_init() doesn't have to be explicitly called in platform > code. > > Anyway, I don't have any strong opinion on this. If it is perfectly fine to > abuse irqchip_init() for anything that must be done at this stage of boot, > then I'm fine with this either and will modify the board file from further > patch from this series to not rely on this change any more. Your init_platform only has these two calls in it: + of_clk_init(NULL); + samsung_wdt_reset_of_init(); Presumably you need of_clk_init() for the watchdog to work. But do you actually need to initialize the reset logic this early? Why not turn samsung_wdt_reset_of_init into a standalone driver, or call it from init_machine? I would actually like to call of_clk_init from common code at some point between init_irq and init_time, although I'm not sure if some platforms need it to be called before init_irq. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2013 16:12:15 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v6 4/8] ARM: Add .init_platform() callback to machine descriptor In-Reply-To: <72209947.cQvP4jsDBz@amdc1227> References: <1371774924-9224-1-git-send-email-tomasz.figa@gmail.com> <51C429F4.60709@arm.com> <72209947.cQvP4jsDBz@amdc1227> Message-ID: <201306211612.15508.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 21 June 2013, Tomasz Figa wrote: > > To me, this new hook is strictly equivalent to init_irq. What do we gain > > exactly? I didn't think init_irq was going away... > > > > I know init_irq is not pretty, and we tend to overload it with other > > stuff, but I don't really see the point of adding a new callback that > > has the exact same properties. > > Well, it doesn't really give us any functional benefits. > > However in my opinion it looks much saner in case of DT-only platforms that > don't need any specific IRQ initialization, but need to call some platform > specific initialization routines, after memory management, but before > anything else is initialized. > > This way irqchip_init() doesn't have to be explicitly called in platform > code. > > Anyway, I don't have any strong opinion on this. If it is perfectly fine to > abuse irqchip_init() for anything that must be done at this stage of boot, > then I'm fine with this either and will modify the board file from further > patch from this series to not rely on this change any more. Your init_platform only has these two calls in it: + of_clk_init(NULL); + samsung_wdt_reset_of_init(); Presumably you need of_clk_init() for the watchdog to work. But do you actually need to initialize the reset logic this early? Why not turn samsung_wdt_reset_of_init into a standalone driver, or call it from init_machine? I would actually like to call of_clk_init from common code at some point between init_irq and init_time, although I'm not sure if some platforms need it to be called before init_irq. Arnd