On 08/29/13 15:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 27 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
@@ -58,10 +57,10 @@ static void __init zynq_init_machine(void)
of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, zynq_of_bus_ids, NULL);
}
-static void __init zynq_timer_init(void)
+static void __init
.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 16/16] ARM: zynq: Don't call of_clk_init()
>
> On Thursday 29 August 2013, Michal Simek wrote:
> > Is there any plan to remove all of them?
> > I expect that on almost all platforms it is a need to have at least
> > one early hook to be ab
On Thursday 29 August 2013, Michal Simek wrote:
> Is there any plan to remove all of them?
> I expect that on almost all platforms it is a need to have at least one
> early hook to be able to setup things.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need any, and on arm64 we don't plan to
introduce callbacks
On 08/29/2013 03:37 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
>> @@ -58,10 +57,10 @@ static void __init zynq_init_machine(void)
>> of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, zynq_of_bus_ids, NULL);
>> }
>>
>> -static void __init zynq_timer_init(void)
>> +static
On Tuesday 27 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
> @@ -58,10 +57,10 @@ static void __init zynq_init_machine(void)
> of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, zynq_of_bus_ids, NULL);
> }
>
> -static void __init zynq_timer_init(void)
> +static void __init zynq_init_irq(void)
> {
> +
On Tuesday 27 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
@@ -58,10 +57,10 @@ static void __init zynq_init_machine(void)
of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, zynq_of_bus_ids, NULL);
}
-static void __init zynq_timer_init(void)
+static void __init zynq_init_irq(void)
{
+
On 08/29/2013 03:37 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 27 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
@@ -58,10 +57,10 @@ static void __init zynq_init_machine(void)
of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, zynq_of_bus_ids, NULL);
}
-static void __init zynq_timer_init(void)
+static void __init
On Thursday 29 August 2013, Michal Simek wrote:
Is there any plan to remove all of them?
I expect that on almost all platforms it is a need to have at least one
early hook to be able to setup things.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need any, and on arm64 we don't plan to
introduce callbacks in
: [PATCH RFC v2 16/16] ARM: zynq: Don't call of_clk_init()
On Thursday 29 August 2013, Michal Simek wrote:
Is there any plan to remove all of them?
I expect that on almost all platforms it is a need to have at least
one early hook to be able to setup things.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't need
On 08/29/13 15:37, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Tuesday 27 August 2013, Sebastian Hesselbarth wrote:
@@ -58,10 +57,10 @@ static void __init zynq_init_machine(void)
of_platform_bus_probe(NULL, zynq_of_bus_ids, NULL);
}
-static void __init zynq_timer_init(void)
+static void __init
From: Soren Brinkmann
of_clk_init() has been moved to be called from common code, therefore
remove it from Zynq's clock init routine. Since the Zynq's clock setup
routine relies on an initialized SLCR, zynq_slcr_init() is moved to
init_irq() instead.
Signed-off-by: Soren Brinkmann
---
Cc:
From: Soren Brinkmann soren.brinkm...@xilinx.com
of_clk_init() has been moved to be called from common code, therefore
remove it from Zynq's clock init routine. Since the Zynq's clock setup
routine relies on an initialized SLCR, zynq_slcr_init() is moved to
init_irq() instead.
Signed-off-by:
12 matches
Mail list logo