From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 16:13:13 +0100
Subject: [RFC PATCH 01/16] ARM: local timers: early device probing hooks
In-Reply-To: <201106171656.10745.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <1308251204-16719-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
	<1308251204-16719-2-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com>
	<201106171656.10745.arnd@arndb.de>
Message-ID: <4DFB6F09.6060407@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 17/06/11 15:56, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 16 June 2011, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> @@ -147,6 +148,19 @@ static int __init timer_init_syscore_ops(void)
>>  
>>  device_initcall(timer_init_syscore_ops);
>>  
>> +void (* __initdata arm_late_time_init)(void);
>> +
>> +static void __init __arm_late_time_init(void)
>> +{
>> +       if (arm_late_time_init)
>> +               arm_late_time_init();
>> +
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_LOCAL_TIMER_DEVICES
>> +       early_platform_driver_register_all("localtimer");
>> +       early_platform_driver_probe("localtimer", 1, 0);
>> +#endif
>> +}
>> +
>>  void __init time_init(void)
>>  {
>>         system_timer = machine_desc->timer;
> 
> Instead of having two separate global pointers, should we make the ARM specific
> callback a machine_desc callback?

Probably not. I only see this arm_late_time_init pointer as a temporary
measure. The only user (shmobile) uses this hook to install its own
early timers, and there is a patch floating around to move that code to
time.c. Unless we have other uses for such a callback, of course.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...