Re: [PATCH v19 10/15] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Refactor the timer init code to prepare for GTDT

Fu Wei
2017-01-17T10:30:05Z

Hi Mark,

On 17 January 2017 at 02:30, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 02:45:58PM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>> From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org>
>>
>> The patch refactor original memory-mapped timer init code:
>> (1) Refactor "arch_timer_mem_init", make it become a common code for
>> memory-mapped timer init.
>> (2) Add a new function "arch_timer_mem_of_init" for DT init.
>
> As a general note, please write proper commit messages, describing what
> the problem is, and why we are making the changes. These bullet points
> don't add anything to what can be derived from a glance at the code.
>
> For this patch, you can use:
>
> clocksource: arm_arch_timer: refactor MMIO timer probing
>
> Currently the code to probe MMIO architected timers mixes DT parsing
> with actual poking of hardware. This makes the code harder than
> necessary to understand, and makes it difficult to add support for
> probing via ACPI.
>
> This patch factors all the DT-specific logic out of
> arch_timer_mem_init(), into a new function, arch_timer_mem_of_init().
> The former pokes the hardware and determines the suitablility of
> frames based on a datastructure populated by the latter.
>
> This cleanly separates the two and will make it possible to add
> probing using the ACPI GTDT in subsequent patches.

Great thanks for this upstream tip.
I have used your example commit message instead.
It will be in v20.

>
> [...]
>
>> + for_each_available_child_of_node(np, frame_node) {
>> + int n;
>> + struct arch_timer_mem_frame *frame = &timer_mem->frame[i];
>> +
>> + if (of_property_read_u32(frame_node, "frame-number", &n)) {
>> + pr_err("Missing frame-number\n");
>> + of_node_put(frame_node);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + frame->frame_nr = n;
>> +
>> + if (of_address_to_resource(frame_node, 0, &res)) {
>> + of_node_put(frame_node);
>> + goto out;
>> + }
>> + frame->cntbase = res.start;
>> + frame->size = resource_size(&res);
>> +
>> + frame->virt_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(frame_node,
>> + ARCH_TIMER_VIRT_SPI);
>> + frame->phys_irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(frame_node,
>> + ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_SPI);
>>
>> - if (!arch_timer_needs_of_probing())
>> + if (++i >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES)
>> + break;
>> + }
>
> It would be good if we could warn upon seeing more than
> ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES children, since that's obviously an error.

OK, NP, will use

if (i >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES) {
pr_err(FW_BUG "too many frames, ARMv8 spec only allows 8.\n");
goto out;
}

at the beginning of this loop.

Here will be replaced by i++;

Great thanks for your suggestion!

>
> Thanks,
> Mark.

--
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat