Re: [PATCH 2/2] clocksource/drivers/nxp-timer: Add the System Timer Module for the s32g platform

From: Daniel Lezcano
Date: Wed Mar 26 2025 - 05:20:05 EST

On 26/03/2025 08:44, Ghennadi Procopciuc wrote:
On 3/25/2025 3:54 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 25/03/2025 14:21, Ghennadi Procopciuc wrote:
On 3/25/2025 2:51 PM, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
[ ... ]
+static int __init nxp_stm_timer_probe(struct platform_device
*pdev)
+{
+    struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
+    struct device_node *np = dev->of_node;
+    struct stm_instances *stm_instances;
+    const char *name = of_node_full_name(np);
+    void __iomem *base;
+    int irq, ret;
+    struct clk *clk;
+
+    stm_instances =
(typeof(stm_instances))of_device_get_match_data(dev);
+    if (!stm_instances) {
+        dev_err(dev, "No STM instances associated with a cpu");
+        return -EINVAL;
+    }
+
+    base = devm_of_iomap(dev, np, 0, NULL);
+    if (IS_ERR(base)) {
+        dev_err(dev, "Failed to iomap %pOFn\n", np);
+        return PTR_ERR(base);
+    }
+
+    irq = irq_of_parse_and_map(np, 0);
+    if (irq <= 0) {
+        dev_err(dev, "Failed to parse and map IRQ: %d\n", irq);
+        return -EINVAL;
+    }

    From commit description:

The first probed STM is used as a clocksource, the second will be
the
broadcast timer and the rest are used as a clockevent with the
affinity set to a CPU.

Why is the interrupt mandatory when the node is probed as a
clocksource?

It relies on the DT description and it does not hurt to have a
consistent code path for clockevent / clocksource even if the
interrupt
is not requested for the clocksource later.


If so, in my opinion, it would make sense to use the same STM
instance
for both the clocksource and broadcast clockevent, as both functions
can
be accommodated within a single STM instance, which will help reduce
the
number of STM instances used.

The broadcast timer is stopped when it is unused which is the case for
the s32 because there are no idle state powering down the local
timers.
They have to have be separated.


This wouldn't be the case if the STM is kept running/counting during
the
clock event setup, with only the clock event interrupt being disabled
(CCR.CEN).

Are you asking to use two different channels for the same STM instance,
one for the clocksource and one for the clockevent ?


I suggested using the CNT register to obtain the count for the clock
source, while using one of the STM channels for the clock event.

Ah, ok.

I think it is preferable to keep them separated to keep the code
modular. Given the number of STM on the platform, it does not hurt


The S32G2 and S32G3 are SoCs featuring a diverse set of cores. Linux is
expected to run on Cortex-A53 cores, while other software stacks will
operate on Cortex-M cores. The number of STM instances has been sized to
include at most one instance per core. Allocating six instances (1 clock
source, 1 broadcast clock event, and 4 clock events for all A53 cores)
to Linux on the S32G2 leaves the M7 software stacks without adequate STM
coverage.

Given this description I'm wondering why one STM has to be used as a clocksource if the STM_07 is already a TS one. And also, we can get rid of the broadcast timer as there is no idle state forcing a switch to an always-on timer.

IIUC, on the S32g2 there are 4 x Cortex-A53 and 3 x Cortex-M3, that means we need 7 timers.

The system has 7 timers + a special one for timestamp.

So if I follow the reasoning, the broadcast timer should not be used otherwise one cortex-M3 will end up without a timer.

That leads us to one clocksource for the first per CPU timer initialized or alternatively one STM instance == 1 clocksource and 1 clockevent which makes things simpler


--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog