[PATCH v8 09/16] clockevents/drivers: Add STM32 Timer driver

[daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano)]

On 05/19/2015 10:55 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
> 2015-05-19 10:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>:
>> On 05/18/2015 04:03 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>>
>>> 2015-05-18 15:10 GMT+02:00 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>:
>>>>
>>>> On 05/09/2015 09:53 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> STM32 MCUs feature 16 and 32 bits general purpose timers with
>>>>> prescalers.
>>>>> The drivers detects whether the time is 16 or 32 bits, and applies a
>>>>> 1024 prescaler value if it is 16 bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
>>>>> Tested-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/clocksource/Kconfig       |   8 ++
>>>>>     drivers/clocksource/Makefile      |   1 +
>>>>>     drivers/clocksource/timer-stm32.c | 184
>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     3 files changed, 193 insertions(+)
>>>>>     create mode 100644 drivers/clocksource/timer-stm32.c
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> index bf9364c..2443520 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -106,6 +106,14 @@ config CLKSRC_EFM32
>>>>>             Support to use the timers of EFM32 SoCs as clock source and
>>>>> clock
>>>>>             event device.
>>>>>
>>>>> +config CLKSRC_STM32
>>>>> +       bool "Clocksource for STM32 SoCs" if !ARCH_STM32
>>>>> +       depends on OF && ARM && (ARCH_STM32 || COMPILE_TEST)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are the interactive bool and the 'COMPILE_TEST' necessary ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The interactive bool is necessary if we want to be able to
>>> select/deselect it in COMPILE_TEST configuration.
>>> And personnaly, I think COMPILE_TEST use makes sense.
>>>
>>> Note that other timer drivers are doing the same thing today
>>> (CLKSRC_EFM32, SH_TIMER_CMT, EM_TIMER_STI...).
>>>
>>> Do you have a specific concern regarding COMPILE_TEST?
>>
>>
>> Actually, we try to keep the timer selection non-interactive and let the
>> platform's Kconfig to select the timer.
>
> Ok.
>
>>
>> I like when the code is consistent. The COMPILE_TEST was introduced and
>> created a precedence. I would like to get rid of the interactive timer
>> selection but I did not have time to go through this yet.
>
> Indeed, consistency is important.
> On my side, I don't have a strong opinion regarding the COMPILE_TEST thing.
> IMHO, it is more a subsystem's maintainer choice.
>
> So, if as a maintainer you don't use it and prefer not supporting it,
> I'm fine to provide you a new version without COMPILE_TEST.
> Doing that, the interactive selection will disappear too.
>
> I can provide you a new version this evenning.

Ok, great.

Thanks
   -- Daniel

>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>   <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs
>>
>> Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
>> <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
>> <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
>>


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog