From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: narmstrong@baylibre.com (Neil Armstrong) Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 09:31:56 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] clocksource: sp804: Add support for OX810SE 24bit timer width In-Reply-To: <20160426163055.GB13887@linaro.org> References: <1459520559-13110-1-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <1459520559-13110-2-git-send-email-narmstrong@baylibre.com> <20160422074645.GA3974@linaro.org> <571E2E38.3060401@baylibre.com> <20160426163055.GB13887@linaro.org> Message-ID: <5732DFEC.6070605@baylibre.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/26/2016 06:30 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 04:48:24PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote: >> On 04/22/2016 09:53 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 04:22:38PM +0200, Neil Armstrong wrote: >>>>> In order to support the Dual-Timer on the Oxford Semiconductor OX810SE SoC, >>>>> implement variable counter width, keeping 32bit as default width. >>>>> Add new compatible string oxsemi,ox810se-rps-timer in order to select >>>>> the 24bit counter width. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Neil Armstrong >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-sp804.c | 107 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- >>>>> include/clocksource/timer-sp804.h | 42 ++++++++++++--- >>>>> 2 files changed, 102 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> I will take those patches but this driver really deserves a cleanup. >>> >>> If it deserves a cleanup, then this should happen _BEFORE_ we add new >>> functionality to it. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> tglx >>> >> >> Hi Thomas, Daniel, >> >> Sure this driver should have a cleanup, but it still depends on old legacy vexpress calls. >> >> The reason I submitted a change and a small cleanup over this driver is because the high >> similarities of the HW and avoiding adding a brand new driver cloning much of its >> functionalities. > > Hi Neil, > > it is a good idea to avoid having new drivers when it is possible to group > them into a single one. > >> I propose to study an eventual cleanup, but could this change be submitted for 4.7 since >> it's part of a base platform support serie ? > > I am not against if the next patches you send are cleanups. > > Thomas ? > Hi Thomas, Is the proposition acceptable ? When this patchset will hit 4.7, I will work on a rework for 4.8. Thanks, Neil