From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:30:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4359736.Q4L68M2aRW@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5639D409.1030302@linaro.org>
On Wednesday 04 November 2015 10:46:49 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 03:28 PM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > In case there are several possible delay timers, we purely base the
> > selection on the frequency, which is suboptimal in some cases. Take
> > one Marvell Berlin platform for example: we have arch timer and dw-apb
> > timer. The arch timer freq is 25MHZ while the dw-apb timer freq is
> > 100MHZ, current selection would choose the dw-apb timer. But the dw
> > apb timer is on the APB bus while arch timer sits in CPU, the cost
> > of accessing the apb timer is higher than the arch timer.
> >
> > This series firstly modifies register_current_timer_delay() to choose
> > the highest rating delay timer: use the rating as a primary indication
> > and fall back to comparing the frequency if the rating is not set or
> > the same. Then we set the arch_delay_timer rating as 400, finally
> > Implement ARM delay timer for the dw_apb_timer and set its rating as 300.
>
> Hi Jisheng, Arnd,
>
> I don't feel comfortable with the rating / freq think. I am afraid this
> approach based on heuristic will bring a lot of complexity and
> workarounds in the code for a small benefit.
>
> Why don't we define a DT entry for the delay timer ? So we delegate the
> choice to the platform DT definition.
That would be wrong, because the fact that Linux uses a timer to
optimize its udelay() function is not a feature of the hardware.
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, linux@arm.linux.org.uk,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:30:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4359736.Q4L68M2aRW@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5639D409.1030302@linaro.org>
On Wednesday 04 November 2015 10:46:49 Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 11/03/2015 03:28 PM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> > In case there are several possible delay timers, we purely base the
> > selection on the frequency, which is suboptimal in some cases. Take
> > one Marvell Berlin platform for example: we have arch timer and dw-apb
> > timer. The arch timer freq is 25MHZ while the dw-apb timer freq is
> > 100MHZ, current selection would choose the dw-apb timer. But the dw
> > apb timer is on the APB bus while arch timer sits in CPU, the cost
> > of accessing the apb timer is higher than the arch timer.
> >
> > This series firstly modifies register_current_timer_delay() to choose
> > the highest rating delay timer: use the rating as a primary indication
> > and fall back to comparing the frequency if the rating is not set or
> > the same. Then we set the arch_delay_timer rating as 400, finally
> > Implement ARM delay timer for the dw_apb_timer and set its rating as 300.
>
> Hi Jisheng, Arnd,
>
> I don't feel comfortable with the rating / freq think. I am afraid this
> approach based on heuristic will bring a lot of complexity and
> workarounds in the code for a small benefit.
>
> Why don't we define a DT entry for the delay timer ? So we delegate the
> choice to the platform DT definition.
That would be wrong, because the fact that Linux uses a timer to
optimize its udelay() function is not a feature of the hardware.
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-04 10:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-03 14:28 [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03 14:28 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] ARM: delay: choose the highest rating " Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03 14:28 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: arch_timer: set the arch_delay_timer rating as 400 Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03 14:28 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03 14:28 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] clocksource/drivers/dw_apb_timer_of: Implement ARM delay timer Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-03 14:28 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-04 9:46 ` [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best " Daniel Lezcano
2015-11-04 9:46 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-11-04 10:30 ` Arnd Bergmann [this message]
2015-11-04 10:30 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-04 11:19 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-11-04 11:19 ` Daniel Lezcano
2015-11-04 12:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-04 12:19 ` Arnd Bergmann
2015-11-05 2:36 ` Jisheng Zhang
2015-11-05 2:36 ` 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=4359736.Q4L68M2aRW@wuerfel \
--to=arnd@arndb.de \
--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.