[PATCH 18/20] clocksource / acpi: Add macro CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE

[Hanjun Guo]

Hi Linus,

Sorry for the late reply.

On 2014年01月22日 16:26, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org> wrote:
>
>> From: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel at samsung.com>
>>
>> This macro does the same job as CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE. The device
>> name from the ACPI timer table is matched with all the registered
>> timer controllers and matching initialisation routine is invoked.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.daniel at samsung.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo at linaro.org>
> Actually I have a fat patch renaming CLOCKSOURCE_OF_DECLARE()
> to TIMER_OF_DECLARE() and I think this macro, if needed, should
> be named TIMER_ACPI_DECLARE().
>
> The reason is that "clocksource" is a Linux-internal name and this
> macro pertains to the hardware name in respective system
> description type.

That make sense to me too, I will update in next version if
this patch is still needed.

>
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
>> +#define CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE(name, compat, fn)                     \
>> +       static const struct acpi_device_id __clksrc_acpi_table_##name   \
>> +               __used __section(__clksrc_acpi_table)                   \
>> +                = { .id = compat,                              \
>> +                    .driver_data = (kernel_ulong_t)fn }
>> +#else
>> +#define CLOCKSOURCE_ACPI_DECLARE(name, compat, fn)
>> +#endif
> This hammers down the world to compile one binary for ACPI
> and one binary for device tree. Maybe that's fine, I don't know.

This is a problem we can have some discussion on it.
I prefer mutually exclusive ACPI and DT support.

Thanks
Hanjun