On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 05:58:00PM +0000, Hiremath, Vaibhav wrote: > On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 04:25:30, Tony Lindgren wrote: > > Hi, > > > > * Vaibhav Hiremath <[email protected]> [120119 06:01]: > > > OMAP device has 32k-sync timer which is currently used as a > > > clocksource in the kernel (omap2plus_defconfig). > > > The current implementation uses compile time selection between > > > gp-timer and 32k-sync timer, which breaks multi-omap build for > > > the devices like AM33xx, where 32k-sync timer is not available. > > > > > > So use hwmod database lookup mechanism, through which at run-time > > > we can identify availability of 32k-sync timer on the device, > > > else fall back to gp-timer. > > ... > > > > > --- a/arch/arm/plat-omap/counter_32k.c > > > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-omap/counter_32k.c > > > @@ -69,52 +69,55 @@ void read_persistent_clock(struct timespec *ts) > > > > > > int __init omap_init_clocksource_32k(void) > > > { > > > - static char err[] __initdata = KERN_ERR > > > - "%s: can't register clocksource!\n"; > > > - > > > - if (cpu_is_omap16xx() || cpu_class_is_omap2()) { > > > - u32 pbase; > > > - unsigned long size = SZ_4K; > > > - void __iomem *base; > > > - struct clk *sync_32k_ick; > > > - > > > - if (cpu_is_omap16xx()) { > > > - pbase = OMAP16XX_TIMER_32K_SYNCHRONIZED; > > > - size = SZ_1K; > > > - } else if (cpu_is_omap2420()) > > > - pbase = OMAP2420_32KSYNCT_BASE + 0x10; > > > - else if (cpu_is_omap2430()) > > > - pbase = OMAP2430_32KSYNCT_BASE + 0x10; > > > - else if (cpu_is_omap34xx()) > > > - pbase = OMAP3430_32KSYNCT_BASE + 0x10; > > > - else if (cpu_is_omap44xx()) > > > - pbase = OMAP4430_32KSYNCT_BASE + 0x10; > > > - else > > > + u32 pbase; > > > + unsigned long size = SZ_4K; > > > + void __iomem *base; > > > + struct clk *sync_32k_ick; > > > + > > > + if (cpu_is_omap16xx()) { > > > + pbase = OMAP16XX_TIMER_32K_SYNCHRONIZED; > > > + size = SZ_1K; > > > + } else if (cpu_class_is_omap2()) { > > > + struct omap_hwmod *oh; > > > + const char *oh_name = "counter_32k"; > > > + > > > + oh = omap_hwmod_lookup(oh_name); > > > + if (!oh || oh->slaves_cnt == 0) { > > > + pr_err("Could not lookup %s hwmod\n", oh_name); > > > return -ENODEV; > > > + } > > > + pbase = oh->slaves[0]->addr->pa_start + 0x10; > > > + } else { > > > + return -ENODEV; > > > + } > > > > How about have separate omap1 and omap2+ init functions that > > call a common function and passes the pbase as a parameter? > > > > That way we can get rid of the cpu_is_omapxxxx tests here. > > > > Tony, > > In the morning, I replied very soon, without much thinking... > > Just now I started working on the patch, I was just reviewing the code, > and I felt that, it is unnecessary to split the code between omap1 and > omap2+. > > The reason is, > > Currently Only OMAP16xx base-address is hardcoded with > cpu_is_omap16xx() macro, For all other omap family of devices the > complete information is fetched from HWDMO api's/data.
In that case, why don't you create the platform_device by hand on arch/arm/mach-omap1/devices.c and move the omap2+ (which is based on hwmod) to arch/arm/mach-omap2/devices.c ? -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
