From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH v22 00/11] acpi, clocksource: add GTDT driver and GTDT support in arm_arch_timer Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 14:05:52 +0100 Message-ID: <20170328130552.GA8643@leverpostej> References: <20170321163122.9183-1-fu.wei@linaro.org> <1cc5a994-0af6-79ea-930d-44b3fc789427@jonmasters.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Fu Wei Cc: Linaro ACPI Mailman List , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , rruigrok@codeaurora.org, Wim Van Sebroeck , Wei Huang , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Arnd Bergmann , Al Stone , Tomasz Nowicki , Timur Tabi , Daniel Lezcano , ACPI Devel Maling List , Guenter Roeck , Len Brown , "Abdulhamid, Harb" , Julien Grall , linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, Jon Masters , Marc Zyngier , Jon Masters , Christopher Covington , Thomas Gleixner , linux-arm-kernel@lists.in List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 08:34:12PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thanks for your email > An hour ago, I just got some feedback from Lorenzo, will update my > patchset ASAP according to his suggestion. > > But I still need some feedback form Mark, I can see some progress here: > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mark/linux.git/log/?h=arch-timer/gtdt > > I guess I should rebase my patchset to his gtdt branch for v23. > > So now, I am waiting for Mark's feedback to move on. Sorry for the delay; I have not had the time to focus on this as I would like to. I'm happy with patches 1-4, but from patch 5 onwards, there's one change I'd like to see. I'd prefer that mmio timer frame rame N was always stored at arch_timer_mem::frame[N], rather than arch_timer_mem::frame[] being in an arbitrary order. That will make arch_timer_mem_frame::frame_nr redundant. To allow arch_timer_mem::frame[] this to be sparse, I'm happy to have a bool arch_timer_mem_frame::valid field that we set when probing each frame. Then we don't need arch_timer_mem::num_frames. This will make iterating over the frames far less confusing, and makes it simple to detect when a frame number is erroneously reused. Otherwise, I'm largely happy to pick the rest and apply any fixups myself. Thanks, Mark.