From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 21:52:30 +0800 Subject: [RFC part3 PATCH 2/2] ARM64 / clocksource: Use arch_timer_acpi_init() In-Reply-To: References: <1386069328-22502-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1386069328-22502-3-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> Message-ID: <529DE21E.4080707@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 2013?12?03? 20:27, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Tue, Dec 3, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >> + /* if can't be initialised from DT, try ACPI way */ >> + if (!arch_timer_get_rate()) >> + arch_timer_acpi_init(); >> + >> arch_timer_rate = arch_timer_get_rate(); > This looks a bit fragile. Having a call like arch_timer_get_rate() > to check whether there is a DT node for the timer doesn't seem > right, can you refactor the code to provide some > has_arch_timer_node() or similar call instead, so it's a bit easier > to understand & maintain at least? Good point, thanks for the guidance. I will introduce has_arch_timer_node() as you said and use it as follows: if (has_arch_timer_node()) clocksource_of_init(); esle arch_timer_acpi_init(); /* try ACPI way */ Is this make sense to you? Thanks Hanjun