Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 19 May 2015 11:06:32 +0200 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 09/16] clockevents/drivers: Add STM32 Timer driver |
| |
On 05/19/2015 10:55 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: > 2015-05-19 10:16 GMT+02:00 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>: >> On 05/18/2015 04:03 PM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>> >>> 2015-05-18 15:10 GMT+02:00 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>: >>>> >>>> On 05/09/2015 09:53 AM, Maxime Coquelin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> STM32 MCUs feature 16 and 32 bits general purpose timers with >>>>> prescalers. >>>>> The drivers detects whether the time is 16 or 32 bits, and applies a >>>>> 1024 prescaler value if it is 16 bits. >>>>> >>>>> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org> >>>>> Tested-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/clocksource/Kconfig | 8 ++ >>>>> drivers/clocksource/Makefile | 1 + >>>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-stm32.c | 184 >>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>>>> 3 files changed, 193 insertions(+) >>>>> create mode 100644 drivers/clocksource/timer-stm32.c >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig >>>>> index bf9364c..2443520 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig >>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig >>>>> @@ -106,6 +106,14 @@ config CLKSRC_EFM32 >>>>> Support to use the timers of EFM32 SoCs as clock source and >>>>> clock >>>>> event device. >>>>> >>>>> +config CLKSRC_STM32 >>>>> + bool "Clocksource for STM32 SoCs" if !ARCH_STM32 >>>>> + depends on OF && ARM && (ARCH_STM32 || COMPILE_TEST) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Are the interactive bool and the 'COMPILE_TEST' necessary ? >>>> >>> >>> The interactive bool is necessary if we want to be able to >>> select/deselect it in COMPILE_TEST configuration. >>> And personnaly, I think COMPILE_TEST use makes sense. >>> >>> Note that other timer drivers are doing the same thing today >>> (CLKSRC_EFM32, SH_TIMER_CMT, EM_TIMER_STI...). >>> >>> Do you have a specific concern regarding COMPILE_TEST? >> >> >> Actually, we try to keep the timer selection non-interactive and let the >> platform's Kconfig to select the timer. > > Ok. > >> >> I like when the code is consistent. The COMPILE_TEST was introduced and >> created a precedence. I would like to get rid of the interactive timer >> selection but I did not have time to go through this yet. > > Indeed, consistency is important. > On my side, I don't have a strong opinion regarding the COMPILE_TEST thing. > IMHO, it is more a subsystem's maintainer choice. > > So, if as a maintainer you don't use it and prefer not supporting it, > I'm fine to provide you a new version without COMPILE_TEST. > Doing that, the interactive selection will disappear too. > > I can provide you a new version this evenning.
Ok, great.
Thanks -- Daniel
>> >> >> >> -- >> <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 >>
-- <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
| |