Re: [RFC/PATCH 00/11] arm: omap: counter32k rework

[Felipe Balbi <balbi@ti.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1361 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 10:22:46AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 September 2015 15:43:55 Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > 
> > the following patches de-obfuscate arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c
> > and start moving code to drivers/clocksource. So far only counter32k
> > has been moved over.
> > 
> > Note that we can't get rid of all the code (yet) because there are
> > still platforms relying to legacy boot and because of the strong
> > coupling with OMAP's hwmod layer.
> > 
> > This is, for now, an RFC and has be written on top of [1]. Boot tested
> > with AM335x and AM437x.
> > 
> > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=144354336924308&w=2
> 
> Looks very nice!
> 
> > ps: if anybody has a good idea on how to get rid of
> > register_persistent_clock(), please let me know
> 
> I don't think we want to get rid of that, because it is the more
> accurate interface. IIRC systems that have an RTC will use
> timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64() in rtc_resume(). I don't know however
> how the two methods are coordinated, i.e. how the kernel ensures that
> exactly one of the two is used, but never both.

however register_persistent_clock() is an ARM-only thing, the question
was more towards that. Do we want to continue using the ARM-only
register_persistent_clock() or is there a more generic version of it ?

-- 
balbi

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]