The of_clk structure has a period field that is set up initially by
timer_of_clk_init(), that period value need to be adjusted for a case of
TIMER1-9 that are running at a fixed rate that doesn't match the clock's
rate. Note that the period value is currently used only by some of the
clocksource drivers internally and hence this is just a minor cleanup
change that doesn't fix anything.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
---
drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
index 810b4e7435cf..646b3530c2d2 100644
--- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
+++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
@@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static int tegra_timer_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
static int tegra_timer_set_periodic(struct clock_event_device *evt)
{
void __iomem *reg_base = timer_of_base(to_timer_of(evt));
+ unsigned long period = timer_of_period(to_timer_of(evt));
- writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER |
- ((timer_of_rate(to_timer_of(evt)) / HZ) - 1),
+ writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER | (period - 1),
reg_base + TIMER_PTV);
return 0;
@@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ static int __init tegra_init_timer(struct device_node *np, bool tegra20,
cpu_to->clkevt.rating = rating;
cpu_to->clkevt.cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
cpu_to->of_base.base = timer_reg_base + base;
+ cpu_to->of_clk.period = DIV_ROUND_UP(rate, HZ);
cpu_to->of_clk.rate = rate;
irq_set_status_flags(cpu_to->clkevt.irq, IRQ_NOAUTOEN);
--
2.21.0
On 10/06/2019 17:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> The of_clk structure has a period field that is set up initially by
> timer_of_clk_init(), that period value need to be adjusted for a case of
> TIMER1-9 that are running at a fixed rate that doesn't match the clock's
> rate. Note that the period value is currently used only by some of the
> clocksource drivers internally and hence this is just a minor cleanup
> change that doesn't fix anything.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
> index 810b4e7435cf..646b3530c2d2 100644
> --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static int tegra_timer_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
> static int tegra_timer_set_periodic(struct clock_event_device *evt)
> {
> void __iomem *reg_base = timer_of_base(to_timer_of(evt));
> + unsigned long period = timer_of_period(to_timer_of(evt));
>
> - writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER |
> - ((timer_of_rate(to_timer_of(evt)) / HZ) - 1),
> + writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER | (period - 1),
> reg_base + TIMER_PTV);
>
> return 0;
> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ static int __init tegra_init_timer(struct device_node *np, bool tegra20,
> cpu_to->clkevt.rating = rating;
> cpu_to->clkevt.cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
> cpu_to->of_base.base = timer_reg_base + base;
> + cpu_to->of_clk.period = DIV_ROUND_UP(rate, HZ);
Any reason you made this a round-up?
Jon
--
nvpublic
14.06.2019 18:48, Jon Hunter пишет:
>
> On 10/06/2019 17:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> The of_clk structure has a period field that is set up initially by
>> timer_of_clk_init(), that period value need to be adjusted for a case of
>> TIMER1-9 that are running at a fixed rate that doesn't match the clock's
>> rate. Note that the period value is currently used only by some of the
>> clocksource drivers internally and hence this is just a minor cleanup
>> change that doesn't fix anything.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c | 5 +++--
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>> index 810b4e7435cf..646b3530c2d2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static int tegra_timer_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>> static int tegra_timer_set_periodic(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>> {
>> void __iomem *reg_base = timer_of_base(to_timer_of(evt));
>> + unsigned long period = timer_of_period(to_timer_of(evt));
>>
>> - writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER |
>> - ((timer_of_rate(to_timer_of(evt)) / HZ) - 1),
>> + writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER | (period - 1),
>> reg_base + TIMER_PTV);
>>
>> return 0;
>> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ static int __init tegra_init_timer(struct device_node *np, bool tegra20,
>> cpu_to->clkevt.rating = rating;
>> cpu_to->clkevt.cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
>> cpu_to->of_base.base = timer_reg_base + base;
>> + cpu_to->of_clk.period = DIV_ROUND_UP(rate, HZ);
>
> Any reason you made this a round-up?
That's what timer_of_clk_init() does, I assume it should be a more correct variant.
On 14/06/2019 17:45, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 14.06.2019 18:48, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>
>> On 10/06/2019 17:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> The of_clk structure has a period field that is set up initially by
>>> timer_of_clk_init(), that period value need to be adjusted for a case of
>>> TIMER1-9 that are running at a fixed rate that doesn't match the clock's
>>> rate. Note that the period value is currently used only by some of the
>>> clocksource drivers internally and hence this is just a minor cleanup
>>> change that doesn't fix anything.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c | 5 +++--
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>> index 810b4e7435cf..646b3530c2d2 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static int tegra_timer_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>> static int tegra_timer_set_periodic(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>> {
>>> void __iomem *reg_base = timer_of_base(to_timer_of(evt));
>>> + unsigned long period = timer_of_period(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>
>>> - writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER |
>>> - ((timer_of_rate(to_timer_of(evt)) / HZ) - 1),
>>> + writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER | (period - 1),
>>> reg_base + TIMER_PTV);
>>>
>>> return 0;
>>> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ static int __init tegra_init_timer(struct device_node *np, bool tegra20,
>>> cpu_to->clkevt.rating = rating;
>>> cpu_to->clkevt.cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
>>> cpu_to->of_base.base = timer_reg_base + base;
>>> + cpu_to->of_clk.period = DIV_ROUND_UP(rate, HZ);
>>
>> Any reason you made this a round-up?
>
> That's what timer_of_clk_init() does, I assume it should be a more correct variant.
Sounds to me like this should be 2 patches, because you are changing the
value. This is not just purely cleanup IMO.
Jon
--
nvpublic
17.06.2019 13:51, Jon Hunter пишет:
>
> On 14/06/2019 17:45, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 14.06.2019 18:48, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>>
>>> On 10/06/2019 17:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> The of_clk structure has a period field that is set up initially by
>>>> timer_of_clk_init(), that period value need to be adjusted for a case of
>>>> TIMER1-9 that are running at a fixed rate that doesn't match the clock's
>>>> rate. Note that the period value is currently used only by some of the
>>>> clocksource drivers internally and hence this is just a minor cleanup
>>>> change that doesn't fix anything.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c | 5 +++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>> index 810b4e7435cf..646b3530c2d2 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static int tegra_timer_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>>> static int tegra_timer_set_periodic(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>>> {
>>>> void __iomem *reg_base = timer_of_base(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>> + unsigned long period = timer_of_period(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>>
>>>> - writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER |
>>>> - ((timer_of_rate(to_timer_of(evt)) / HZ) - 1),
>>>> + writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER | (period - 1),
>>>> reg_base + TIMER_PTV);
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ static int __init tegra_init_timer(struct device_node *np, bool tegra20,
>>>> cpu_to->clkevt.rating = rating;
>>>> cpu_to->clkevt.cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
>>>> cpu_to->of_base.base = timer_reg_base + base;
>>>> + cpu_to->of_clk.period = DIV_ROUND_UP(rate, HZ);
>>>
>>> Any reason you made this a round-up?
>>
>> That's what timer_of_clk_init() does, I assume it should be a more correct variant.
>
> Sounds to me like this should be 2 patches, because you are changing the
> value. This is not just purely cleanup IMO.
Indeed, that could be at least mentioned in the commit message. Probably I just
assumed that this is such a minor change that not worth anything. A hundred of
microseconds is hardly noticeable.
I'm not really sure if this really worth a re-spin at this point. Jon, are you insisting?
Also, I now see that some drivers use DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(), maybe it will be even
better? Not sure.. given that this is still a microseconds difference.
On 17/06/2019 15:04, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 17.06.2019 13:51, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>
>> On 14/06/2019 17:45, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>> 14.06.2019 18:48, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/06/2019 17:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>> The of_clk structure has a period field that is set up initially by
>>>>> timer_of_clk_init(), that period value need to be adjusted for a case of
>>>>> TIMER1-9 that are running at a fixed rate that doesn't match the clock's
>>>>> rate. Note that the period value is currently used only by some of the
>>>>> clocksource drivers internally and hence this is just a minor cleanup
>>>>> change that doesn't fix anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c | 5 +++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>> index 810b4e7435cf..646b3530c2d2 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static int tegra_timer_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>>>> static int tegra_timer_set_periodic(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>>>> {
>>>>> void __iomem *reg_base = timer_of_base(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>>> + unsigned long period = timer_of_period(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>>>
>>>>> - writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER |
>>>>> - ((timer_of_rate(to_timer_of(evt)) / HZ) - 1),
>>>>> + writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER | (period - 1),
>>>>> reg_base + TIMER_PTV);
>>>>>
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ static int __init tegra_init_timer(struct device_node *np, bool tegra20,
>>>>> cpu_to->clkevt.rating = rating;
>>>>> cpu_to->clkevt.cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
>>>>> cpu_to->of_base.base = timer_reg_base + base;
>>>>> + cpu_to->of_clk.period = DIV_ROUND_UP(rate, HZ);
>>>>
>>>> Any reason you made this a round-up?
>>>
>>> That's what timer_of_clk_init() does, I assume it should be a more correct variant.
>>
>> Sounds to me like this should be 2 patches, because you are changing the
>> value. This is not just purely cleanup IMO.
>
> Indeed, that could be at least mentioned in the commit message. Probably I just
> assumed that this is such a minor change that not worth anything. A hundred of
> microseconds is hardly noticeable.
>
> I'm not really sure if this really worth a re-spin at this point. Jon, are you insisting?
At a minimum the changelog needs to be udpated to reflect what is going
on here. Yes it may not be a massive difference, but I prefer not to
change things without any rationale.
Cheers
Jon
--
nvpublic
18.06.2019 11:40, Jon Hunter пишет:
>
> On 17/06/2019 15:04, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 17.06.2019 13:51, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>>
>>> On 14/06/2019 17:45, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>> 14.06.2019 18:48, Jon Hunter пишет:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/06/2019 17:43, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>>>>>> The of_clk structure has a period field that is set up initially by
>>>>>> timer_of_clk_init(), that period value need to be adjusted for a case of
>>>>>> TIMER1-9 that are running at a fixed rate that doesn't match the clock's
>>>>>> rate. Note that the period value is currently used only by some of the
>>>>>> clocksource drivers internally and hence this is just a minor cleanup
>>>>>> change that doesn't fix anything.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c | 5 +++--
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>>> index 810b4e7435cf..646b3530c2d2 100644
>>>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/timer-tegra.c
>>>>>> @@ -71,9 +71,9 @@ static int tegra_timer_shutdown(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>>>>> static int tegra_timer_set_periodic(struct clock_event_device *evt)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> void __iomem *reg_base = timer_of_base(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>>>> + unsigned long period = timer_of_period(to_timer_of(evt));
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER |
>>>>>> - ((timer_of_rate(to_timer_of(evt)) / HZ) - 1),
>>>>>> + writel_relaxed(TIMER_PTV_EN | TIMER_PTV_PER | (period - 1),
>>>>>> reg_base + TIMER_PTV);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> @@ -297,6 +297,7 @@ static int __init tegra_init_timer(struct device_node *np, bool tegra20,
>>>>>> cpu_to->clkevt.rating = rating;
>>>>>> cpu_to->clkevt.cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
>>>>>> cpu_to->of_base.base = timer_reg_base + base;
>>>>>> + cpu_to->of_clk.period = DIV_ROUND_UP(rate, HZ);
>>>>>
>>>>> Any reason you made this a round-up?
>>>>
>>>> That's what timer_of_clk_init() does, I assume it should be a more correct variant.
>>>
>>> Sounds to me like this should be 2 patches, because you are changing the
>>> value. This is not just purely cleanup IMO.
>>
>> Indeed, that could be at least mentioned in the commit message. Probably I just
>> assumed that this is such a minor change that not worth anything. A hundred of
>> microseconds is hardly noticeable.
>>
>> I'm not really sure if this really worth a re-spin at this point. Jon, are you insisting?
>
> At a minimum the changelog needs to be udpated to reflect what is going
> on here. Yes it may not be a massive difference, but I prefer not to
> change things without any rationale.
Okay, I'll respin this series and probably will just drop the round-up. I'll also
append the other two new patches "cycles can't be 0" and "max limit correction" to
this series.
Daniel, I'll also correct the "Fixes" tag to satisfy the linux-next patch checker.