[PATCH] omap3: beagle: Use GPTIMERi 1 for clockevents
Premi, Sanjeev
premi at ti.com
Mon Jun 27 11:40:38 EDT 2011
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Walmsley [mailto:paul at pwsan.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 9:00 PM
> To: Premi, Sanjeev; Tony Lindgren
> Cc: Koen Kooi; linux-omap at vger.kernel.org List; linux-arm-kernel
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] omap3: beagle: Use GPTIMERi 1 for clockevents
>
> On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Tony Lindgren wrote:
>
> > This fix will cause bad dependency issues with sys_timer.
> >
> > This patch has a dependency to omap3_beagle_init_rev, which
> depends on
> > the mux framework and gpio framework. Not cool for
> init_early. We just
> > want to initialize sys_timer early without any complicated
> dependencies.
> >
> > The best way to fix this is to set a separate machine ID
> for the properly
> > working beagle boards like xm, then just set the .timer
> entry to omap3_timer
> > for working beagle boards and omap3_secure_timer for
> non-working beagle
> > boards. The rest of the board-*.c file can be shared.
>
> Sanjeev, want to take care of this? Machine ID update info is in
> linux/arch/arm/tools/mach-types.
>
> This strategy will unfortunately involve patching
> bootloaders. But if the
> default is to use GPT12, it should work out okay.
[sp] Just sent another query to Tony on this specific issue.
But, if different mach-type is the way forward, then
I will take it forward.
>
> Hopefully we won't have to do the same thing for the other
> Beagle-derived
> boards, Devkit8000, Touchbook, etc. etc. Then again, I
> suppose this will
> eventually just be another property passed in via DT, with a single
> machine ID.
[sp] Can you look at my query to Tony? Will that be an acceptable
workaround until DT. Going to two machine IDs and then unifying
back again could cause confusion - esp. during transition times.
~sanjeev
>
> > The above assumes the patches in devel-timer branch where
> we no longer
> > have the non-standard timer interface, but use the sys_timer entries
> > instead like we should.
>
>
> - Paul
>
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list