From: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
To: Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@iguana.be>,
Alexandre Courbot <gnurou@gmail.com>,
linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org, linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] clocksource: tegra: Register watchdog device
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:00:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <543D72DD.4000501@wwwdotorg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141014104218.GG18993@ulmo>
On 10/14/2014 04:42 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 09:42:10AM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>> On 10/13/2014 05:05 AM, Thierry Reding wrote:
>>> From: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> The watchdog timer is part of the timer controller block on Tegra. In
>>> order to avoid access to the same registers from two drivers, register
>>> the watchdog device from the clocksource driver.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thierry Reding <treding@nvidia.com>
>>
>> Does that really make sense ?
>>
>> A couple of callbacks into the clock driver to implement register accesses
>> might be a better approach.
>
> I guess that would be a valid approach as well. It has the downside of
> requiring the addition of at least two globally visible symbols to the
> kernel. It also means that we'd need to somehow pass around a struct
> device for diagnostic messages and so on. Dealing with all of that seems
> like much more of a burden than this.
>
> Also if you look at the diffstat this approach allows us to get rid of
> 80 lines of code. Adding a custom mechanism to share the register space
> would be more likely to result in a positive diffstat.
FWIW, (although I haven't read the patches), the general idea of
registering a single driver for each HW block makes sense to me. While
we've split up HW blocks into separate drivers in the past, I think
that's just made things more complex without much benefit, so I think
those decisions were a mistake in retrospect. If we do actually need to
split things up into separate drivers, we should use MFD rather than
multiple unrelated top-level drivers. That way, we will have a single
top-level driver that gets instantiated from a single DT node (or
platform device in a board file or ACPI thing or ...)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-14 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-13 12:05 [PATCH 1/2] clocksource: tegra: Refactor and cleanup Thierry Reding
2014-10-13 12:05 ` [PATCH 2/2] clocksource: tegra: Register watchdog device Thierry Reding
2014-10-13 16:42 ` Guenter Roeck
2014-10-14 10:42 ` Thierry Reding
2014-10-14 19:00 ` Stephen Warren [this message]
2014-10-15 8:04 ` Thierry Reding
2014-10-15 13:25 ` Guenter Roeck
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=543D72DD.4000501@wwwdotorg.org \
--to=swarren@wwwdotorg.org \
--cc=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
--cc=gnurou@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@roeck-us.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thierry.reding@gmail.com \
--cc=wim@iguana.be \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox