All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jszhang@marvell.com (Jisheng Zhang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: support timer-based delay
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:45:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151103174534.2c9f5eeb@xhacker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6198599.NHtefZl19R@wuerfel>

Dear Arnd

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:49:32 +0100
Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Tuesday 03 November 2015 14:59:40 Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > On Monday 02 November 2015 11:03:34 Jisheng Zhang wrote:  
> > > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:42:01 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:    
> > > I'd be happier with a solution that keeps the DT describing the hardware
> > > and not the way we expect Linux to use it, and instead has some heuristic
> > > in the selection of the delay timer. At the moment, we purely base this
> > > on the frequency, which as you say is suboptimal.
> > > 
> > > One possible way to improve this would be to add an optional 'latency'
> > > property to the DT nodes (or the driver), and use a combination of latency
> > > and resolution to make the decision.  
> > 
> > Got it. Thanks for the suggestions. The 'latency' here seems a 'rating'
> > similar as the one in clocksource. I will cook a series for review:
> > 
> > patch 1 to make register_current_timer_delay() aware of 'rating'
> > 
> > patch 2 to set rating of arch timer as 400
> > 
> > patch 3 to add timer based delay support to dw_apb_timer whose rating is 300  
> 
> Ok. Just to make sure I got this right: your plan is to use the existing
> 'rating' setting as a primary indication, and fall back to comparing the
> frequency if the rating is the same?

Yes, this is my plan.

Thanks,
Jisheng

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>, <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: support timer-based delay
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 17:45:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151103174534.2c9f5eeb@xhacker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6198599.NHtefZl19R@wuerfel>

Dear Arnd

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:49:32 +0100
Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Tuesday 03 November 2015 14:59:40 Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > > On Monday 02 November 2015 11:03:34 Jisheng Zhang wrote:  
> > > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:42:01 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:    
> > > I'd be happier with a solution that keeps the DT describing the hardware
> > > and not the way we expect Linux to use it, and instead has some heuristic
> > > in the selection of the delay timer. At the moment, we purely base this
> > > on the frequency, which as you say is suboptimal.
> > > 
> > > One possible way to improve this would be to add an optional 'latency'
> > > property to the DT nodes (or the driver), and use a combination of latency
> > > and resolution to make the decision.  
> > 
> > Got it. Thanks for the suggestions. The 'latency' here seems a 'rating'
> > similar as the one in clocksource. I will cook a series for review:
> > 
> > patch 1 to make register_current_timer_delay() aware of 'rating'
> > 
> > patch 2 to set rating of arch timer as 400
> > 
> > patch 3 to add timer based delay support to dw_apb_timer whose rating is 300  
> 
> Ok. Just to make sure I got this right: your plan is to use the existing
> 'rating' setting as a primary indication, and fall back to comparing the
> frequency if the rating is the same?

Yes, this is my plan.

Thanks,
Jisheng

  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-03  9:45 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-30  8:27 [PATCH] clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: support timer-based delay Jisheng Zhang
2015-10-30  8:27 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-10-30 10:14 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-10-30 10:14   ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-10-30 10:44 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-10-30 10:44   ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-10-30 11:09   ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-10-30 11:09     ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-10-30 12:37     ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-10-30 12:37       ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-11-02  2:51       ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-02  2:51         ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-02  8:48         ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-11-02  8:48           ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-11-02 13:33           ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-02 13:33             ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-02 21:49           ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-02 21:49             ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-30 12:42     ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-10-30 12:42       ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-02  3:03       ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-02  3:03         ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-02 21:56         ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-02 21:56           ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-03  6:59           ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03  6:59             ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03  8:49             ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-03  8:49               ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-03  9:45               ` Jisheng Zhang [this message]
2015-11-03  9:45                 ` Jisheng Zhang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20151103174534.2c9f5eeb@xhacker \
    --to=jszhang@marvell.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.