From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: santosh.shilimkar@ti.com (Santosh Shilimkar) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:26:37 +0530 Subject: [PATCHv2 07/11] arm: arch_timer: divorce from local_timer api In-Reply-To: <20130111164635.GA1794@arm.com> References: <1357747640-18594-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <1357747640-18594-8-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com> <50F014DF.7090205@ti.com> <20130111164635.GA1794@arm.com> Message-ID: <50F04445.70506@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Friday 11 January 2013 10:16 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:34:23PM +0000, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> On Wednesday 09 January 2013 09:37 PM, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> Currently, the arch_timer driver is tied to the arm port, as it relies >>> on code in arch/arm/smp.c to setup and teardown timers as cores are >>> hotplugged on and off. The timer is registered through an arm-specific >>> registration mechanism, preventing sharing the driver with the arm64 >>> port. >>> >>> This patch moves the driver to using a cpu notifier instead, making it >>> easier to port. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Rutland >>> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas >>> Acked-by: Marc Zyngier >>> --- >> This is really a nit idea. I think we should do the same >> for ARM gic code. > > I plan to do the same once Rob's GIC patches get merged. In my > soc-armv8-model branch I have a copy of gic.c into drivers/irqchip and > the CPU interface is done automatically via a notifier. The only trick > is to set the priority of the GIC notifier higher than the timer one. > Great. Thanks for the information. Regards, Santosh