From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1754883AbdARLyq (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:54:46 -0500
Received: from mga07.intel.com ([134.134.136.100]:47379 "EHLO mga07.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1754695AbdARLyo (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 18 Jan 2017 06:54:44 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,249,1477983600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="32120490"
Message-ID: <1484740467.2133.202.camel@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] x86/rtc: Allocate interrupt for platform device
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 13:54:27 +0200
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701181159290.3464@nanos>
References: <20170116172345.3823-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
          <20170116190437.GB13946@wotan.suse.de>
          <1484594499.2133.159.camel@linux.intel.com>
          <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701162131570.3923@nanos>
          <1484660404.2133.170.camel@linux.intel.com>
          <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701181051540.3464@nanos>
         <1484736987.2133.188.camel@linux.intel.com>
         <alpine.DEB.2.20.1701181159290.3464@nanos>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.3-1 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 12:02 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2017, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 11:24 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Looking deeper it's actually simple. MID already overloads the
> > > timer_init()
> > > setup function. So we can just do it there.
> > 
> > Yes, it does. However I have another solution, just would like to
> > discuss.
> > 
> > There is a timekeeping_init() call, which is a first user of the
> > RTC.
> > I have 3 changes:
> > - introduce arch_pre_timekeeping_init() and move wallclock_init()
> > call
> > there
> 
> Oh no, please don't add yet another arch hook just because we can.

I see.

> > - use almost your initial suggestion
> > - move wallclock_init() to x86_platform and rename to
> > init_wallclock()
> > to be consistent with the rest of wallclock API (this, though, has
> > item
> > to discuss, i.e. __init use for callbacks)
> > 
> > This would allow to clearly initialize virtual RTC or legacy one at
> > the
> > same know point.
> 
> What's wrong with setting up the rtc interrupt in that existing mid
> function? It's a platform quirk and we really do no need yet another
> hook
> to make it look 'generic'. Nothing else than MID uses it.

Nothing specifically wrong. I would give a try to this and send a patch
if everything okay.

-- 
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Intel Finland Oy