Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754570Ab3F1Nes (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:34:48 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:46261 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751257Ab3F1Ner (ORCPT ); Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:34:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 15:34:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Jonas Jensen cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arm@kernel.org, john.stultz@linaro.org, u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de, tomasz.figa@gmail.com, linus.walleij@linaro.org, thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com, arnd@arndb.de Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ARM: clocksource: add support for MOXA ART SoCs In-Reply-To: <1372332203-30228-1-git-send-email-jonas.jensen@gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <1372258383-24524-1-git-send-email-jonas.jensen@gmail.com> <1372332203-30228-1-git-send-email-jonas.jensen@gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3425 Lines: 129 On Thu, 27 Jun 2013, Jonas Jensen wrote: > +#define TIMER_CR 0x30 > +#define TIMER_INTR_STATE 0x34 > +#define TIMER_INTR_MASK 0x38 Please use the same indent level for all. > + > +static void moxart_clkevt_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode, > + struct clock_event_device *clk) Please align it like this: static void moxart_clkevt_mode(enum clock_event_mode mode, struct clock_event_device *clk) Makes the code way simpler to read. > +{ > +static int moxart_clkevt_next_event(unsigned long cycles, > + struct clock_event_device *unused) Ditto. > +{ > + u32 u; Newline between variable declaration and code please. All over the place. > + u = readl(base + TIMER1_BASE + REG_COUNT) - cycles; > + writel(u, base + TIMER1_BASE + REG_MATCH1); Is this a real match functionality, i.e. is the trigger on == ? If yes, how is guaranteed, that for a small cycles value the counter has not passed the match value already? > + u = readl(base + TIMER_CR) | TIMEREG_CR_1_ENABLE; > + writel(u, base + TIMER_CR); > + return 0; > +} > + > +static struct clock_event_device moxart_clockevent = { > + .name = "moxart_timer", Could you please align the assigned values? i.e. .name = "moxart_timer", .rating = 200, Way better readable than: > + .rating = 200, > + .features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT, > +static void __init moxart_timer_init(struct device_node *node) > +{ > + int ret, irq; > + unsigned long pclk; > + struct clk *clk; > + > + base = of_iomap(node, 0); > + if (!base) > + panic("%s: failed to map base\n", node->full_name); > + > + irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0); > + if (irq <= 0) > + panic("%s: can't parse IRQ\n", node->full_name); > + > + ret = setup_irq(irq, &moxart_timer_irq); > + if (ret) { > + pr_err("%s: failed to setup IRQ %d\n", node->full_name, irq); > + return; This is inconsistent. You panic on the first two checks and then you simply return. > + } > + > + clk = of_clk_get(node, 0); > + if (IS_ERR(clk)) { > + pr_err("%s: of_clk_get failed\n", __func__); Your pr_errs are inconsistent. node->full_name in one and __func__ in the next. __func__ is really not important. The node_name or simply "moxatimer" is describing for what the clk_get failed. > + return; > + } > + > + pclk = clk_get_rate(clk); > + clock_count_per_tick = DIV_ROUND_CLOSEST(pclk, HZ); > + > + writel(~0, base + TIMER2_BASE + REG_LOAD); > + > + writel(TIMEREG_CR_2_ENABLE, base + TIMER_CR); > + > + if (clocksource_mmio_init(base + TIMER2_BASE + REG_COUNT, > + "moxart_timer", pclk, 200, 32, > + clocksource_mmio_readl_down)) { Please align the arguments consistently. if (clocksource_mmio_init(base + TIMER2_BASE + REG_COUNT, "moxart_timer", pclk, 200, 32, clocksource_mmio_readl_down)) { > + clockevents_config_and_register(&moxart_clockevent, pclk, > + 0x4, 0xf0000000); How did you come up with 0xf0000000? Random number generator? > + pr_info("%s: %s finished pclk=%lu HZ=%d IRQ=%d\n", > + node->full_name, __func__, pclk, HZ, irq); We really do not need to know about the function name and "finished" is completely pointless information as well. Thanks, tglx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/