Hi Mark
On 20 October 2016 at 22:45, Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 02:17:09AM +0800, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
diff --git a/include/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h b/include/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h index caedb74..6f06481 100644 --- a/include/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h +++ b/include/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.h @@ -19,6 +19,9 @@
Please add:
#include <linux/bitops.h>
... immediately before the includes below; it's needed to ensure that BIT() is defined in all cases. Previously we were relying on implicit header includes, which is not good practice.
yes, you are right! added this, thanks !
#include <linux/timecounter.h> #include <linux/types.h>
+#define ARCH_CP15_TIMER BIT(0) +#define ARCH_MEM_TIMER BIT(1)
If we're going to expose these in a header, it would be better to rename them to something that makes their usage/meaning clear. These should probably be ARCH_TIMER_TYPE_{CP15,MEM}.
I guess this can wait for subsequent cleanup.
+enum ppi_nr {
PHYS_SECURE_PPI,PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI,VIRT_PPI,HYP_PPI,MAX_TIMER_PPI+};
Please rename this to arch_timer_ppi_nr (updating the single user in drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c). That'll avoid the potential for name clashes in files this happens to get included in (potentially transitively via other headers).
OK, NP, I have fixed this.
With those changes (regardless of the ARCH_TIMER_TYPE_* bits):
Acked-by: Mark Rutland mark.rutland@arm.com
For ARCH_TIMER_TYPE_*, maybe I should add a patch at the end of this patchset to fix it, OK ?
Thanks for ACK :-)
Thanks, Mark.
#define ARCH_TIMER_PHYS_ACCESS 0 #define ARCH_TIMER_VIRT_ACCESS 1
#define ARCH_TIMER_MEM_PHYS_ACCESS 2
2.7.4