Re: [RFC v2 1/2] clocksource: davinci-timer: add support for clockevents

[Bartosz Golaszewski]

niedz., 26 maj 2019 o 10:16 Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
>
> sob., 25 maj 2019 o 16:16 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
> >
> > On 24/05/2019 13:53, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > > pt., 24 maj 2019 o 10:59 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
> > >>
> > >> On 24/05/2019 09:28, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > >>> czw., 23 maj 2019 o 18:38 Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@xxxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ(a):
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 23/05/2019 14:58, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> > >>>>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Currently the clocksource and clockevent support for davinci platforms
> > >>>>> lives in mach-davinci. It hard-codes many things, uses global variables,
> > >>>>> implements functionalities unused by any platform and has code fragments
> > >>>>> scattered across many (often unrelated) files.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Implement a new, modern and simplified timer driver and put it into
> > >>>>> drivers/clocksource. We still need to support legacy board files so
> > >>>>> export a config structure and a function that allows machine code to
> > >>>>> register the timer.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The timer we're using is 64-bit but can be programmed in dual 32-bit
> > >>>>> mode (both chained and unchained). We're using dual 32-bit mode to
> > >>>>> have separate counters for clockevents and clocksource.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This patch contains the core code and support for clockevent. The
> > >>>>> clocksource code will be included in a subsequent patch.
> > >>>>>
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > >>>>> +static unsigned int
> > >>>>> +davinci_clockevent_read(struct davinci_clockevent *clockevent,
> > >>>>> +                     unsigned int reg)
> > >>>>> +{
> > >>>>> +     return readl_relaxed(clockevent->base + reg);
> > >>>>> +}
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> +static void davinci_clockevent_write(struct davinci_clockevent *clockevent,
> > >>>>> +                                  unsigned int reg, unsigned int val)
> > >>>>> +{
> > >>>>> +     writel_relaxed(val, clockevent->base + reg);
> > >>>>> +}
> > >>>>> +
> > >>>>> +static void davinci_tcr_update(void __iomem *base,
> > >>>>> +                            unsigned int mask, unsigned int val)
> > >>>>> +{
> > >>>>> +     davinci_tcr &= ~mask;
> > >>>>> +     davinci_tcr |= val & mask;
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I don't see when the davinci_tcr is initialized.
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>> It's set to 0x0 by the compiler and we're setting the register to 0x0
> > >>> in davinci_timer_init().
> > >>
> > >> Why did you need to readl before in the previous version? The idea of
> > >> caching the value was to save an extra readl.
> > >>
> > >> If it is always zero, then we don't need this variable neither the read,
> > >> just doing:
> > >>
> > >> writel_relaxed(val & mask, base + DAVINCI_TIMER_REG_TCR);
> > >>
> > >> should work no ?
> > >
> > > It's not always zero. Its reset value is zero and we write 0 to it at
> > > init time just to make sure, but then we modify it according to the
> > > configuration. The single TCR register controls both halves of the
> > > timer, so we do need an actual update, not a simple write.
> >
> > Ok but the driver can be oneshot or disabled in the code (mutually
> > exclusive), no ?
> >
> > So doing
> >
> >  - writel(oneshot, base);
> >  - writel(disabled, base);
> >
> > works without any mask computation, no?
> >
> > Well the above assumes other part of the register aren't changed by
> > other subsystems (or by the timer itself).
> >
> >
>
> I'm not sure I understand. You can be using two timers. Both
> controlled by a single TCR register. In your example oneshot can equal
> (0x00, or 0x01) and either be shifted left by 6 or 22 for TIM12 and
> TIM34 respectively. If you do writel(oneshot-for-time12, base) you'll
> set tim34 to disabled.
>
> Bart

Gentle ping.

Bart