From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 9/9] clocksource: new RISC-V SBI timer driver Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 16:41:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20180727144148.GA29626@lst.de> References: <20180726143723.16585-1-hch@lst.de> <20180726143723.16585-10-hch@lst.de> <972dacda-75d6-83cd-45e0-c7526a4e02ba@wdc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <972dacda-75d6-83cd-45e0-c7526a4e02ba@wdc.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Atish Patra Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "tglx@linutronix.de" , "palmer@sifive.com" , "jason@lakedaemon.net" , "marc.zyngier@arm.com" , "robh+dt@kernel.org" , "mark.rutland@arm.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "aou@eecs.berkeley.edu" , Dmitriy Cherkasov , "anup@brainfault.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Palmer Dabbelt , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , "shorne@gmail.com" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:51:56AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > Should we follow the same prefix for these functions? > either timer_riscv* or riscv_timer* ? > > Apologies for overlooking this in my timer patch as well. riscv_timer_* sounds saner to me, I can update that. >> + struct clock_event_device *evdev = this_cpu_ptr(&riscv_clock_event); >> + > > The comment about the purpose of clearing the interrupt in the original > patch is removed here. If that's intentional, it's fine. > > I thought having that comment helps understanding the distinction between > clearing the timer interrupt in SBI call & here. Yes, that was intentional. But given that I don't even understand why not using an ABI for architectural interrupt source enable/disable maybe I'm confused and should revisit that decision.