On 12.06.20 13:41, Jouko Haapaluoma via Xenomai wrote:
> This patch set adds basic I-pipe support for the SAMA5D3 SoC
> 
> A few mainline patches need to be applied to the tcb_clksrc driver so
> that it can be used as the only clocksource. A patch from RT_PREEMPT
> was also merged to support higher than 32k clkevent frequency.
> 
> Additional patch was created to increase the clkevent max_delta to 32-bit
> when TCB has 32-bit channels. This makes it possible to always use high
> resolution clkevent when 32-bit channels are available.
> 
> After that the ipipe_timer and clksrc support can be added into tcb_clksrc.
> 
> Pinctrl-at91 also requires usage of the ipipe_handle_demuxed_irq()
> 
> Tested with latest ipipe-arm branch ipipe/master (Linux 4.19.82)
> 
> Alexandre Belloni (4):
>   ARM: at91: move SoC specific definitions to SoC folder
>   clocksource/drivers/tcb_clksrc: Stop depending on atmel_tclib
>   clocksource/drivers/tcb_clksrc: Use tcb as sched_clock
>   clocksource/drivers/timer-atmel-pit: Rework Kconfig option
> 
> Benedikt Spranger (1):
>   clocksource: TCLIB: Allow higher clock rates for clock events
> 
> Jouko Haapaluoma (3):
>   tcb_clksrc: Always use high resolution with 32-bit channels
>   tcb_clksrc: Add ipipe_timer and ipipe_tsc support
>   pinctrl-at91: Add ipipe pipeline support
> 
> Tuomo Jauhiainen (1):
>   mach-at91: Add IPIPE_ARM_KUSER_TSC for SAMA5D3
> 
>  arch/arm/mach-at91/Kconfig                         |   1 +
>  drivers/clocksource/Kconfig                        |   5 +-
>  drivers/clocksource/tcb_clksrc.c                   | 237 
> +++++++++++++++------
>  drivers/misc/Kconfig                               |  20 +-
>  drivers/misc/atmel_tclib.c                         |   2 +-
>  drivers/pinctrl/pinctrl-at91.c                     |   5 +-
>  drivers/pwm/pwm-atmel-tcb.c                        |   2 +-
>  include/{linux/atmel_tc.h => soc/at91/atmel_tcb.h} |   4 +-
>  8 files changed, 189 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
>  rename include/{linux/atmel_tc.h => soc/at91/atmel_tcb.h} (99%)
> 

Great, thanks for the patches! I assume Greg will look into them in details.

Regarding the mainline patches: Are they simply missing in 4.19 because
they were not backported as fixes (feature patches)? Are they safe to be
applied on a stable branch, i.e. side-effect free for other targets?

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Reply via email to