On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 08:48:38AM +0000, Michal Simek wrote: > From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:a...@arndb.de] > > On Tuesday 30 October 2012, Michal Simek wrote: > > > On 10/29/2012 07:56 PM, Josh Cartwright wrote: [..] > > > > > > delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-zynq/common.h > > > > delete mode 100644 arch/arm/mach-zynq/timer.c > > > > create mode 100644 drivers/clocksource/xilinx_ttc.c > > > > create mode 100644 include/linux/xilinx_ttc.h > > > > > > Really? > > > If yes. shouldn't be there any better naming convention especially > > > for headers. linux/clocksource/xilinx_ttc.h. > > > > Moving it is certainly the right direction, but I think we need a > > better way to handle those forward declarations. "struct sys_timer" > > is actually an ARM specific structure, so we might just want to add > > all the forward declarations for the timers into > > arch/arm/include/asm/mach/time.h. It's not ideal to do it like that, > > but I think it's much better than having a new globally visible > > header for each timer that is used on ARM. > > > > Eventually, we might want to do something similar to what we are > > discussing for the top-level IRQ controllers at the moment, where we > > just autodetect them from DT if possible, so we don't need to have > > any pointer to the timer from arch code at all. > > Ok. It means that it is not big deal to keep timer as is in mach and > when we have any generic solution we can follow it. This patch just > move the code out of mach-zynq. It should be done across architecture > because for example timer I use for microblaze can be used by zynq > too, also by Xilinx ppc.
That all makes sense. Since posting, I've had to rework this a bit for getting COMMON_CLK support working with the TTC. I'll pull this patch (in proper form, and with some slight modifications) into my pending COMMON_CLK support patchset. Thanks, Josh
pgpO4KYBx6e1m.pgp
Description: PGP signature
