On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:51:56AM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: > Should we follow the same prefix for these functions? > either timer_riscv* or riscv_timer* ? > > Apologies for overlooking this in my timer patch as well.
riscv_timer_* sounds saner to me, I can update that. >> + struct clock_event_device *evdev = this_cpu_ptr(&riscv_clock_event); >> + > > The comment about the purpose of clearing the interrupt in the original > patch is removed here. If that's intentional, it's fine. > > I thought having that comment helps understanding the distinction between > clearing the timer interrupt in SBI call & here. Yes, that was intentional. But given that I don't even understand why not using an ABI for architectural interrupt source enable/disable maybe I'm confused and should revisit that decision.
