From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754310AbbBTKwZ (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:52:25 -0500 Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com ([209.85.212.182]:57112 "EHLO mail-wi0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753995AbbBTKwY (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Feb 2015 05:52:24 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:52:19 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Linaro Kernel Mailman List , Kevin Hilman , Preeti U Murthy , Daniel Lezcano , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Frederic Weisbecker , Linaro Networking , Steven Miao , Mark Salter , Michal Simek , Ralf Baechle , Ley Foon Tan , Jonas Bonn , "David S. Miller" , Jeff Dike , Guan Xuetao Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents: Add (missing) default case for switch blocks Message-ID: <20150220105219.GA26933@gmail.com> References: <6291e308ab77a480c6b1732e16108c5fe6f66afa.1424412815.git.viresh.kumar@linaro.org> <20150220083842.GA20387@gmail.com> <20150220084807.GJ21418@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <20150220093659.GA23469@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Viresh Kumar wrote: > > So why is a 'default' mode needed then? It makes the > > addition of new modes to the legacy handler easier, > > which looks backwards. > > The requirement was to add another mode ONESHOT_STOPPED > [1], to be supported only by the new per-mode callbacks.. Why would a callback need any flag, and why would a flag be visible to old legacy callbacks? > We have got a clear check in core with the patch Peter > mentioned above, which doesn't let us call legacy > ->set_mode() for the newer modes. > > if (dev->set_mode) { > /* Legacy callback doesn't support new modes */ > if (mode > CLOCK_EVT_MODE_RESUME) > return -ENOSYS; > dev->set_mode(mode, dev); > return 0; > } So here is where one of your problems comes from: why did you add CLOCK_EVT_MODE_RESUME to the interface? Phase it out, it's a legacy interface - new callbacks shouldn't need any mode flags to begin with. > > So I'm confused: if we are using proper callbacks (like > > my example outlined) , why is a 'mode enum' needed at > > all? > > The enum has two uses today: > > - pass mode to the legacy ->set_mode() callback, which > isn't required for the new callbacks. But this is misguided, as per above. > - flag for clockevent core's internal state machine, > which it would still require. For example, it checks > new-mode != old-mode before changing the mode.. Internal state machine state should be decoupled from any interface flags - especially when the interface is legacy. > I believe the enum is still required for the state > machine, even with new per-mode callbacks. That needs to be fixed first then, before introducing new API variants. Thanks, Ingo