| Message ID | 1446469011-22710-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 11/02/2015 04:33 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 02 November 2015 13:56:31 Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> static inline void rk_timer_disable(struct clock_event_device *ce) >> { >> writel_relaxed(TIMER_DISABLE, rk_base(ce) + TIMER_CONTROL_REG); >> - dsb(); >> + dsb(sy); >> } >> >> static inline void rk_timer_enable(struct clock_event_device *ce, u32 flags) >> { >> writel_relaxed(TIMER_ENABLE | TIMER_INT_UNMASK | flags, >> rk_base(ce) + TIMER_CONTROL_REG); >> - dsb(); >> + dsb(sy); >> } >> >> > > This will fail the compile test, because dsb() is not available on non-ARM > architectures. Would it be enough to just use the normal writel() accessor > here? That's a good question and I believe we can remove it but I have to setup a rockchip board before doing the changes in order to test. I the meantime added the COMPILE_TEST option but restricted it to ARM and ARM64. -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 2:02 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > I suspect this will come up again in the future. The problem is > really that drivers/clocksource has different rules from almost > everything else, by requiring the platform to 'select' the driver. > > The second version that Krzysztof posted is how we handle this in > other driver subsystems, and I would generally prefer it to do this > consistently for everything, but John Stultz has in the past argued > strongly for using 'select' in all clocksource drivers. The reason > is that for each platform we know in advance which driver we want, > and there is never a need for the user to have to select the right > one. And just to clarify, I don't necessarily think "select" is the right method, as creating an option that defaults to Y if the right architecture/platform support is present is fine too. I just don't want users to have to search deeply through menuconfig to find a clocksource driver checkbox when they have already selected a platform and provided enough information for us to know which clocksource driver is needed. So my argument its really all about avoiding user-prompts in kconfig for clocksources. It is conceptually easier to do this w/ select, but you can also do it via default y and proper dependencies. thanks -john -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig index 26f659e..a1c9312 100644 --- a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig +++ b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig @@ -112,8 +112,10 @@ config CLKSRC_LPC32XX select CLKSRC_OF config CLKSRC_PISTACHIO - bool + bool "Clocksource for Pistachio SoC" if COMPILE_TEST select CLKSRC_OF + help + Enables the clocksource for the Pistachio SoC. config CLKSRC_STM32 bool "Clocksource for STM32 SoCs" if !ARCH_STM32
Increase the compilation test coverage by adding the COMPILE_TEST option. Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> --- drivers/clocksource/Kconfig | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 1.9.1 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/