[6/6] arm: Remove incorrect and misleading comment in arm_timer

Signed-off-by: Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com>
---
 hw/arm_timer.c |    3 ---
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

Am 09.01.2012 17:59, schrieb Mark Langsdorf:
> Signed-off-by: Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com>
> ---
>  hw/arm_timer.c |    3 ---
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/arm_timer.c b/hw/arm_timer.c
> index 60e1c63..15d493f 100644
> --- a/hw/arm_timer.c
> +++ b/hw/arm_timer.c
> @@ -272,11 +272,8 @@ static int sp804_init(SysBusDevice *dev)
>  
>      qi = qemu_allocate_irqs(sp804_set_irq, s, 2);
>      sysbus_init_irq(dev, &s->irq);
> -    /* The timers are configurable between 32kHz and 1MHz
> -     * defaulting to 1MHz but overrideable as individual properties */

Wasn't this comment added by your "arm: Set frequencies for arm_timer"?

I didn't see a message indicating that series has been applied yet, so
you should probably fix the comment in the original patch instead of in
a follow-up patch. The point of adding the highbank emulation was to see
if the patches are sufficient, no?

Else, the commit message does not indicate what is incorrect/misleading
about it.

Andreas

>      s->timer[0] = arm_timer_init(s->freq0);
>      s->timer[1] = arm_timer_init(s->freq1);
> -
>      s->timer[0]->irq = qi[0];
>      s->timer[1]->irq = qi[1];
>      memory_region_init_io(&s->iomem, &sp804_ops, s, "sp804", 0x1000);

On 10 January 2012 12:45, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 09.01.2012 17:59, schrieb Mark Langsdorf:
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com>
>> ---
>>  hw/arm_timer.c |    3 ---
>>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/arm_timer.c b/hw/arm_timer.c
>> index 60e1c63..15d493f 100644
>> --- a/hw/arm_timer.c
>> +++ b/hw/arm_timer.c
>> @@ -272,11 +272,8 @@ static int sp804_init(SysBusDevice *dev)
>>
>>      qi = qemu_allocate_irqs(sp804_set_irq, s, 2);
>>      sysbus_init_irq(dev, &s->irq);
>> -    /* The timers are configurable between 32kHz and 1MHz
>> -     * defaulting to 1MHz but overrideable as individual properties */
>
> Wasn't this comment added by your "arm: Set frequencies for arm_timer"?
>
> I didn't see a message indicating that series has been applied yet, so
> you should probably fix the comment in the original patch instead of in
> a follow-up patch. The point of adding the highbank emulation was to see
> if the patches are sufficient, no?

It has been applied: commit 104a26a236.

-- PMM

Am 10.01.2012 16:35, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> On 10 January 2012 12:45, Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:
>> Am 09.01.2012 17:59, schrieb Mark Langsdorf:
>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Langsdorf <mark.langsdorf@calxeda.com>
>>> ---
>>>  hw/arm_timer.c |    3 ---
>>>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/arm_timer.c b/hw/arm_timer.c
>>> index 60e1c63..15d493f 100644
>>> --- a/hw/arm_timer.c
>>> +++ b/hw/arm_timer.c
>>> @@ -272,11 +272,8 @@ static int sp804_init(SysBusDevice *dev)
>>>
>>>      qi = qemu_allocate_irqs(sp804_set_irq, s, 2);
>>>      sysbus_init_irq(dev, &s->irq);
>>> -    /* The timers are configurable between 32kHz and 1MHz
>>> -     * defaulting to 1MHz but overrideable as individual properties */
>>
>> Wasn't this comment added by your "arm: Set frequencies for arm_timer"?
>>
>> I didn't see a message indicating that series has been applied yet, so
>> you should probably fix the comment in the original patch instead of in
>> a follow-up patch. The point of adding the highbank emulation was to see
>> if the patches are sufficient, no?
> 
> It has been applied: commit 104a26a236.

The v5 various ARM fixes series doesn't say so, only 3/7 v9 has such a
notice. (Just like unthreaded patches a PULL and the original series do
drift apart.)

Andreas