From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:38:49 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: delay: add registration mechanism for delay
 timer sources
In-Reply-To: <50463657.1070109@codeaurora.org>
References: <1346275524-13817-1-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <1346275524-13817-2-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com>
 <503FFC7D.9050704@codeaurora.org>
 <20120904100750.GC2458@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20120904104403.GE2458@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <50463657.1070109@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <20120904173849.GQ2458@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 06:11:51PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/04/12 03:44, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 11:07:50AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 12:51:25AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>>> +void __init register_current_timer_delay(struct delay_timer *timer)
> >>> const?
> >> Sure. I'll send an updated patch.
> > Gah, spoke too soon. This isn't going to work, as the frequency may not be
> > known until probe time (for example, it could be obtained by the device
> > tree) so const data isn't going to cut it.
> >
> 
> That's fine. We can still do const can't we? I was suggesting you make
> the argument const and not the data in arch_timer.c const. This way we
> can be sure that delay.c isn't going to muck with the struct, but the
> ones who register the struct can fill it in at runtime.

Aha, gotcha. I thought you wanted to enforce const-ness on the provider for
some reason.

> Squash this in and test compile?

Works a treat.

Will