diff mbox

[v11,5/8] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: Simplify ACPI support code.

Message ID 1473168352-5156-6-git-send-email-fu.wei@linaro.org (mailing list archive)
State Not Applicable, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

fu.wei@linaro.org Sept. 6, 2016, 1:25 p.m. UTC
From: Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org>

The patch update arm_arch_timer driver to use the function
provided by the new GTDT driver of ACPI.
By this way, arm_arch_timer.c can be simplified, and separate
all the ACPI GTDT knowledge from this timer driver.

Signed-off-by: Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
---
 drivers/clocksource/Kconfig          |  1 +
 drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 50 +++++++++---------------------------
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)

Comments

Thomas Gleixner Sept. 6, 2016, 2:36 p.m. UTC | #1
On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
> +	if (timer_count < 0)
> +		pr_err("Failed to get platform timer info, skipping.\n");

So this prints something about skipping. But then it continues as if
nothing went wrong. That's either wrong or confusing or both.

> -	arch_timer_init();
> -	return 0;
> +	return arch_timer_init();

Thanks,

	tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
fu.wei@linaro.org Sept. 7, 2016, 9:23 a.m. UTC | #2
Hi Thomas

On 6 September 2016 at 22:36, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>> +     if (timer_count < 0)
>> +             pr_err("Failed to get platform timer info, skipping.\n");
>
> So this prints something about skipping. But then it continues as if
> nothing went wrong. That's either wrong or confusing or both.

yes, you are right, this info is confusing.
maybe we just delete the "skipping" ?

“timer_count < 0” is caused by some firmware bug, in gtdt.c:
----
int __init acpi_gtdt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
{
......
        if (start < (void *)table + sizeof(struct acpi_table_gtdt)) {
        pr_err(FW_BUG "Failed to retrieve timer info from firmware:
invalid data.\n");
        return -EINVAL;
......
}
----

But in this situation( without platform timers ), system still can work.
So I thing we just need to print a error.

>
>> -     arch_timer_init();
>> -     return 0;
>> +     return arch_timer_init();
>
> Thanks,
>
>         tglx
fu.wei@linaro.org Sept. 13, 2016, 9:22 a.m. UTC | #3
Hi Thomas, Daniel,

For these  arm_arch_timer patches, do you have any other suggestion or comment?
I have deleted "skipping" in the error message.

I have prepared v12 (rebase to rc6 and on the top of IORT v11),
should I send it now (if you are OK with my arm_arch_timer patches ),
or anything I can do to improve this patchset ?

Thanks.

On 7 September 2016 at 17:23, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Thomas
>
> On 6 September 2016 at 22:36, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>>> +     if (timer_count < 0)
>>> +             pr_err("Failed to get platform timer info, skipping.\n");
>>
>> So this prints something about skipping. But then it continues as if
>> nothing went wrong. That's either wrong or confusing or both.
>
> yes, you are right, this info is confusing.
> maybe we just delete the "skipping" ?
>
> “timer_count < 0” is caused by some firmware bug, in gtdt.c:
> ----
> int __init acpi_gtdt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
> {
> ......
>         if (start < (void *)table + sizeof(struct acpi_table_gtdt)) {
>         pr_err(FW_BUG "Failed to retrieve timer info from firmware:
> invalid data.\n");
>         return -EINVAL;
> ......
> }
> ----
>
> But in this situation( without platform timers ), system still can work.
> So I thing we just need to print a error.
>
>>
>>> -     arch_timer_init();
>>> -     return 0;
>>> +     return arch_timer_init();
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>         tglx
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Fu Wei
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat
fu.wei@linaro.org Sept. 13, 2016, 10:21 a.m. UTC | #4
Hi Mark, Marc,

Sorry for missing you in the cc list
Do you have any suggestion for the  arm_arch_timer patches?
Could you help me to review these patches ?

Great thanks !

On 13 September 2016 at 17:22, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Thomas, Daniel,
>
> For these  arm_arch_timer patches, do you have any other suggestion or comment?
> I have deleted "skipping" in the error message.
>
> I have prepared v12 (rebase to rc6 and on the top of IORT v11),
> should I send it now (if you are OK with my arm_arch_timer patches ),
> or anything I can do to improve this patchset ?
>
> Thanks.
>
> On 7 September 2016 at 17:23, Fu Wei <fu.wei@linaro.org> wrote:
>> Hi Thomas
>>
>> On 6 September 2016 at 22:36, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, fu.wei@linaro.org wrote:
>>>> +     if (timer_count < 0)
>>>> +             pr_err("Failed to get platform timer info, skipping.\n");
>>>
>>> So this prints something about skipping. But then it continues as if
>>> nothing went wrong. That's either wrong or confusing or both.
>>
>> yes, you are right, this info is confusing.
>> maybe we just delete the "skipping" ?
>>
>> “timer_count < 0” is caused by some firmware bug, in gtdt.c:
>> ----
>> int __init acpi_gtdt_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
>> {
>> ......
>>         if (start < (void *)table + sizeof(struct acpi_table_gtdt)) {
>>         pr_err(FW_BUG "Failed to retrieve timer info from firmware:
>> invalid data.\n");
>>         return -EINVAL;
>> ......
>> }
>> ----
>>
>> But in this situation( without platform timers ), system still can work.
>> So I thing we just need to print a error.
>>
>>>
>>>> -     arch_timer_init();
>>>> -     return 0;
>>>> +     return arch_timer_init();
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>         tglx
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Fu Wei
>> Software Engineer
>> Red Hat
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Fu Wei
> Software Engineer
> Red Hat
Timur Tabi Sept. 13, 2016, 11:38 a.m. UTC | #5
Fu Wei wrote:
> I have prepared v12 (rebase to rc6 and on the top of IORT v11),
> should I send it now

Yes.

Please don't wait to release new versions of your patches.  Time is 
running out to get these into 4.9.
fu.wei@linaro.org Sept. 13, 2016, 11:51 a.m. UTC | #6
Hi Timur


On 09/13/2016 07:38 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Fu Wei wrote:
>> I have prepared v12 (rebase to rc6 and on the top of IORT v11),
>> should I send it now
>
> Yes.
>
> Please don't wait to release new versions of your patches.  Time is running out to get these into 4.9.
>
yes, v12 is posted
working on v13(improving memory-mapped timer code following Marc's suggestion)
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
index b58d259..a63bf12 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
@@ -8,6 +8,7 @@  config CLKSRC_OF
 config CLKSRC_ACPI
 	bool
 	select CLKSRC_PROBE
+	select ACPI_GTDT if ARM64
 
 config CLKSRC_PROBE
 	bool
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
index 7d48349..a01cf22 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
@@ -887,61 +887,35 @@  out:
 CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE(armv7_arch_timer_mem, "arm,armv7-timer-mem",
 		       arch_timer_mem_init);
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
-static int __init map_generic_timer_interrupt(u32 interrupt, u32 flags)
-{
-	int trigger, polarity;
-
-	if (!interrupt)
-		return 0;
-
-	trigger = (flags & ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_MODE) ? ACPI_EDGE_SENSITIVE
-			: ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE;
-
-	polarity = (flags & ACPI_GTDT_INTERRUPT_POLARITY) ? ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW
-			: ACPI_ACTIVE_HIGH;
-
-	return acpi_register_gsi(NULL, interrupt, trigger, polarity);
-}
-
+#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_GTDT
 /* Initialize per-processor generic timer */
 static int __init arch_timer_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)
 {
-	struct acpi_table_gtdt *gtdt;
+	int timer_count;
 
 	if (arch_timers_present & ARCH_CP15_TIMER) {
 		pr_warn("already initialized, skipping\n");
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
 
-	gtdt = container_of(table, struct acpi_table_gtdt, header);
-
 	arch_timers_present |= ARCH_CP15_TIMER;
 
-	arch_timer_ppi[PHYS_SECURE_PPI] =
-		map_generic_timer_interrupt(gtdt->secure_el1_interrupt,
-		gtdt->secure_el1_flags);
-
-	arch_timer_ppi[PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI] =
-		map_generic_timer_interrupt(gtdt->non_secure_el1_interrupt,
-		gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags);
+	timer_count = acpi_gtdt_init(table);
 
-	arch_timer_ppi[VIRT_PPI] =
-		map_generic_timer_interrupt(gtdt->virtual_timer_interrupt,
-		gtdt->virtual_timer_flags);
-
-	arch_timer_ppi[HYP_PPI] =
-		map_generic_timer_interrupt(gtdt->non_secure_el2_interrupt,
-		gtdt->non_secure_el2_flags);
+	arch_timer_ppi[PHYS_SECURE_PPI] = acpi_gtdt_map_ppi(PHYS_SECURE_PPI);
+	arch_timer_ppi[PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI] = acpi_gtdt_map_ppi(PHYS_NONSECURE_PPI);
+	arch_timer_ppi[VIRT_PPI] = acpi_gtdt_map_ppi(VIRT_PPI);
+	arch_timer_ppi[HYP_PPI] = acpi_gtdt_map_ppi(HYP_PPI);
+	/* Always-on capability */
+	arch_timer_c3stop = acpi_gtdt_c3stop();
 
 	/* Get the frequency from CNTFRQ */
 	arch_timer_detect_rate(NULL, NULL);
 
-	/* Always-on capability */
-	arch_timer_c3stop = !(gtdt->non_secure_el1_flags & ACPI_GTDT_ALWAYS_ON);
+	if (timer_count < 0)
+		pr_err("Failed to get platform timer info, skipping.\n");
 
-	arch_timer_init();
-	return 0;
+	return arch_timer_init();
 }
 CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE(arch_timer, ACPI_SIG_GTDT, arch_timer_acpi_init);
 #endif