From: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
To: David Daney <ddaney@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: Anoop P A <anoop.pa@gmail.com>,
linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Introduce mips_late_time_init
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2010 20:37:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101208203704.GB30923@linux-mips.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4CFD2095.9040404@caviumnetworks.com>
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:42:45AM -0800, David Daney wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 12:23 AM, Anoop P A wrote:
> >This patch moves plat_time_init and clocksoure init funtion calls to
> >late_time_init.
> >
>
> Why would you want to do this?
>
> The current code works perfectly, so I see no reason to change it.
Well, not really. By the time time_init is called kmalloc isn't ready yet.
That's why mips_clockevent_device pretty much had to be statically
allocated and is also why interrupts have to use setup_irq instead of
request_irq.
Keeping mips_clockevent_device statically allocated as per-CPU makes sense.
Less for the struct irqaction and he'll have to allocate one for each
VPE (think CPU) he installs a clockevent device on.
Running everything from late_time_init() instead allows the use of kmalloc.
X86 has the same issue with requiring kmalloc in time_init which is why
they had moved everything to late_time_init.
So the real question is, why can't we just move the call of time_init()
in setup_kernel() to where late_time_init() is getting called from for
all architectures, does anything rely on it getting called early?
Ralf
next parent reply other threads:[~2010-12-08 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1291623812.31822.6.camel@paanoop1-desktop>
[not found] ` <4CFD2095.9040404@caviumnetworks.com>
2010-12-08 20:37 ` Ralf Baechle [this message]
2010-12-08 21:21 ` [PATCH] Introduce mips_late_time_init Thomas Gleixner
2010-12-08 22:45 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-12-10 17:21 ` Paul Mundt
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=20101208203704.GB30923@linux-mips.org \
--to=ralf@linux-mips.org \
--cc=anoop.pa@gmail.com \
--cc=ddaney@caviumnetworks.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@linux-mips.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).