[PATCH 8/8] ARM: smp: Remove local timer API

[Mark Rutland]

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 02:37:15AM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 2/22/2013 3:15 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Hi Stephen,
> >
> > One thing that struck me when I was fiddling with the broadcast mechanism was
> > that it should be possible to have a generic dummy timer implementation. As
> > long as the architecture calls notifiers at the appropriate times, it should
> > look like any other timer driver (apart from not touching any hardware). It just
> > needs to depend on ARCH_HAS_TICK_BROADCAST.
> >
> > I believe it shouldn't be too difficult to implement, though I may be blind to
> > some problems.
> 
> I completely agree and I was thinking the same thing while writing this
> patchset.

Great! I've just sent a first attempt in another subthread [1].

[1] http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-February/151539.html

[...]

> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> >> index dedf02b..7d4338d 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> >> @@ -1527,6 +1527,7 @@ config SMP
> >>  	depends on HAVE_SMP
> >>  	depends on MMU
> >>  	select HAVE_ARM_SCU if !ARCH_MSM_SCORPIONMP
> >> +	select HAVE_ARM_TWD if (!ARCH_MSM_SCORPIONMP && !EXYNOS4_MCT)
> >>  	select USE_GENERIC_SMP_HELPERS
> >>  	help
> >>  	  This enables support for systems with more than one CPU. If you have
> > Should this have been in an earlier patch?
> 
> It could be part of the smp_twd patch if you like.

I think it'd be better placed there.

> 
> > Why is it necessary?
> 
> It shouldn't be. In fact, I sent a patchset a few months ago that pushed
> down the TWD and SCU selects to the respective machines that need them.
> I should resend that.

That would be even better.

> 
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> -static void percpu_timer_setup(void);
> >> +static void broadcast_timer_setup(void);
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >>   * This is the secondary CPU boot entry.  We're using this CPUs
> >> @@ -325,9 +317,9 @@ asmlinkage void __cpuinit secondary_start_kernel(void)
> >>  	complete(&cpu_running);
> >>  
> >>  	/*
> >> -	 * Setup the percpu timer for this CPU.
> >> +	 * Setup the dummy broadcast timer for this CPU.
> > To me, calling something a broadcast timer makes it sound like it performs the
> > broadcast. We use the term "broadcast timer" elsewhere here (e.g.
> > broadcast_timer_setup), and I think it's any unnecessarily confusing term.
> >
> > Might it be better to say "dummy timer" consistently?
> 
> Sure. I wonder if we need the comment at all. I can rename the function
> to dummy_timer_setup() and it pretty much sounds like what the comment
> will say.

Sounds good to me, unless we try to fold the generic dummy driver into this
series.

> 
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
> >> index 2bdd4cf..c00a8f8 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
> >> @@ -587,7 +587,6 @@ OMAP_SYS_GP_TIMER_INIT(3_am33xx, 1, OMAP4_MPU_SOURCE, "ti,timer-alwon",
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4
> >>  OMAP_SYS_32K_TIMER_INIT(4, 1, OMAP4_32K_SOURCE, "ti,timer-alwon",
> >>  			2, OMAP4_MPU_SOURCE);
> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_LOCAL_TIMERS
> >>  static DEFINE_TWD_LOCAL_TIMER(twd_local_timer, OMAP44XX_LOCAL_TWD_BASE, 29);
> >>  void __init omap4_local_timer_init(void)
> >>  {
> >> @@ -606,12 +605,6 @@ void __init omap4_local_timer_init(void)
> >>  			pr_err("twd_local_timer_register failed %d\n", err);
> >>  	}
> >>  }
> >> -#else /* CONFIG_LOCAL_TIMERS */
> >> -void __init omap4_local_timer_init(void)
> >> -{
> >> -	omap4_sync32k_timer_init();
> >> -}
> >> -#endif /* CONFIG_LOCAL_TIMERS */
> >>  #endif /* CONFIG_ARCH_OMAP4 */
> >>  
> >>  #ifdef CONFIG_SOC_OMAP5
> > I believe the above OMAP changes should have been in an earlier patch?
> 
> There isn't an omap patch. I could make it part of the smp_twd patch?

Sorry, I missed that while skimming the series. That might make more sense.
Possibly this could be its own patch?

Thanks,
Mark.