Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1603520 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH v21 01/13] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: introduce two functions to get the frequency from mmio and sysreg.

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH v21 01/13] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: introduce two  functions to get the frequency from mmio and sysreg. Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-03-17 19:10 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v21 01/13] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: introduce two  functions to get the frequency from mmio and sysreg. Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> - 2017-03-20 08:40 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v21 01/13] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: introduce two  functions to get the frequency from mmio and sysreg. Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> - 2017-03-20 10:50 +0100
        Re: [PATCH v21 01/13] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: introduce two  functions to get the frequency from mmio and sysreg. Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> - 2017-03-20 11:50 +0100
          Re: [PATCH v21 01/13] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: introduce two  functions to get the frequency from mmio and sysreg. Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> - 2017-03-20 12:20 +0100

#1603520 — Re: [PATCH v21 01/13] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: introduce two functions to get the frequency from mmio and sysreg.

On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:03AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
> +static u32 arch_timer_get_sysreg_freq(void)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of sysreg.
> +	 */
> +	return arch_timer_get_cntfrq();
> +}

We already have arch_timer_get_cntfrq(), so I don't see the point in
this wrapper.

> +static u32 arch_timer_get_mmio_freq(void __iomem *cntbase)
> +{
> +	/*
> +	 * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of timer frame registers.
> +	 * Note: please verify cntbase in caller.
> +	 */
> +	return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
> +}

Wrapping the MMIO read makes sense if we're going to do this in more
than one place, so I'm happy with this wrapper.

If you can s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_cntfrq/, and drop
the comments, then this looks fine to me.

Thanks,
Mark.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1604217

Hi Mark,

On 18 March 2017 at 02:05, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:03AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_sysreg_freq(void)
>> +{
>> +     /*
>> +      * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of sysreg.
>> +      */
>> +     return arch_timer_get_cntfrq();
>> +}
>
> We already have arch_timer_get_cntfrq(), so I don't see the point in
> this wrapper.
>
>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_mmio_freq(void __iomem *cntbase)
>> +{
>> +     /*
>> +      * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of timer frame registers.
>> +      * Note: please verify cntbase in caller.
>> +      */
>> +     return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
>> +}
>
> Wrapping the MMIO read makes sense if we're going to do this in more
> than one place, so I'm happy with this wrapper.
>
> If you can s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_cntfrq/, and drop

sorry, May I guess that is
"s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_mmio_cntfrq/"
or
"s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq/"

which one do you prefer? :-)

> the comments, then this looks fine to me.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1604292

Hi Mark,

On 20 March 2017 at 15:36, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> On 18 March 2017 at 02:05, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:03AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_sysreg_freq(void)
>>> +{
>>> +     /*
>>> +      * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of sysreg.
>>> +      */
>>> +     return arch_timer_get_cntfrq();
>>> +}
>>
>> We already have arch_timer_get_cntfrq(), so I don't see the point in
>> this wrapper.
>>
>>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_mmio_freq(void __iomem *cntbase)
>>> +{
>>> +     /*
>>> +      * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of timer frame registers.
>>> +      * Note: please verify cntbase in caller.
>>> +      */
>>> +     return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
>>> +}
>>
>> Wrapping the MMIO read makes sense if we're going to do this in more
>> than one place, so I'm happy with this wrapper.
>>
>> If you can s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_cntfrq/, and drop
>
> sorry, May I guess that is
> "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_mmio_cntfrq/"
> or
> "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq/"
>
> which one do you prefer? :-)

keeping using arch_timer_get_cntfrq();  for per-CPU arch timer, then

+static u32 arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq(void __iomem *cntbase)
+{
+       return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
+}
+

Is that OK for you?

>
>> the comments, then this looks fine to me.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Fu Wei
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1604361

On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:43:29PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
> On 20 March 2017 at 15:36, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On 18 March 2017 at 02:05, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:03AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:

> >>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_mmio_freq(void __iomem *cntbase)
> >>> +{
> >>> +     /*
> >>> +      * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of timer frame registers.
> >>> +      * Note: please verify cntbase in caller.
> >>> +      */
> >>> +     return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> Wrapping the MMIO read makes sense if we're going to do this in more
> >> than one place, so I'm happy with this wrapper.
> >>
> >> If you can s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_cntfrq/, and drop
> >
> > sorry, May I guess that is
> > "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_mmio_cntfrq/"
> > or
> > "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq/"
> >
> > which one do you prefer? :-)
> 
> keeping using arch_timer_get_cntfrq();  for per-CPU arch timer, then
> 
> +static u32 arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq(void __iomem *cntbase)
> +{
> +       return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
> +}
> +

That looks perfect to me.

Sorry for the confusion above!

Mark.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1604402

Hi Mark,

On 20 March 2017 at 18:41, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 05:43:29PM +0800, Fu Wei wrote:
>> On 20 March 2017 at 15:36, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
>> > On 18 March 2017 at 02:05, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 02:50:03AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>
>> >>> +static u32 arch_timer_get_mmio_freq(void __iomem *cntbase)
>> >>> +{
>> >>> +     /*
>> >>> +      * Try to get the frequency from the CNTFRQ of timer frame registers.
>> >>> +      * Note: please verify cntbase in caller.
>> >>> +      */
>> >>> +     return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
>> >>> +}
>> >>
>> >> Wrapping the MMIO read makes sense if we're going to do this in more
>> >> than one place, so I'm happy with this wrapper.
>> >>
>> >> If you can s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_cntfrq/, and drop
>> >
>> > sorry, May I guess that is
>> > "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_get_mmio_cntfrq/"
>> > or
>> > "s/arch_timer_get_mmio_freq/arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq/"
>> >
>> > which one do you prefer? :-)
>>
>> keeping using arch_timer_get_cntfrq();  for per-CPU arch timer, then
>>
>> +static u32 arch_timer_mem_get_cntfrq(void __iomem *cntbase)
>> +{
>> +       return readl_relaxed(cntbase + CNTFRQ);
>> +}
>> +
>
> That looks perfect to me.
>
> Sorry for the confusion above!

Great, thanks , doing this way :-)

>
> Mark.



-- 
Best regards,

Fu Wei
Software Engineer
Red Hat

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web