Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] xen/arm: Add OMAP5 architected timer initialization codes.

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/08/2013 09:58 AM, Chen Baozi wrote:
> 
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 4:31 PM, Andrii Anisov <andrii.anisov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> 
>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/time.c b/xen/arch/arm/time.c
>> index 4ed7882..104aefc 100644
>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/time.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/time.c
>> @@ -104,6 +104,7 @@ int __init init_xen_time(void)
>>      struct dt_device_node *dev;
>>      int res;
>>      unsigned int i;
>> +    u32 rate;
>>
>>      dev = dt_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "arm,armv7-timer");
>>      if ( !dev )
>> @@ -134,7 +135,11 @@ int __init init_xen_time(void)
>>      if ( !cpu_has_gentimer )
>>          panic("CPU does not support the Generic Timer v1 interface.\n");
>>
>> -    cpu_khz = READ_SYSREG32(CNTFRQ_EL0) / 1000;
>> +    res = dt_property_read_u32(dev, "clock-frequency", &rate);
>> +    if ( res )
>> +       cpu_khz = rate / 1000;
>> +    else
>> +        cpu_khz = READ_SYSREG32(CNTFRQ_EL0) / 1000;
>>
>>      boot_count = READ_SYSREG64(CNTPCT_EL0);
>>      printk("Using generic timer at %lu KHz\n", cpu_khz);
>>
>> I would suggest to extract this into a separate patch. This chunk is a 
>> generic improvement to add support of dt specified clock freq, while all the 
>> rest is a platform specific.
> 
> I'm OK with it. What's your opinion, Julien?

I'm OK with Andrii. It's better to have only one functionality per patch.

Cheers,

-- 
Julien Grall

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel