From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>,
"linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] msm: timer: Support sched_clock()
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:37:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F47CAF5.4000709@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F47C9AA.5060806@codeaurora.org>
On 24/02/12 17:32, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 02/24/12 09:24, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 24/02/12 17:09, David Brown wrote:
>>> I'll keep an eye on it then, and push it into the ARM soc tree when
>>> the dependencies are there.
>> The whole thing is that there's no dependency. The sched_clock() stuff
>> has hit mainline during the merge window. This patch could go in right
>> now, without any harm.
>>
>> What Russell pulled is just a cleanup to convert the last two platforms
>> having their own sched_clock() and not relying on our framework.
>>
>>
>
> This patch relies on the fact that the HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK config option no
> longer exists. We could push it in if the patch had that option added to
> the Kconfig, but then it would conflict with the removal of the Kconfig
> by 6905a65 (ARM: Make the sched_clock framework mandatory, 2012-01-18).
Ah! Indeed, you're perfectly right.
> So I guess we send it through the arm-soc tree?
I don't think arm-soc tracks rmk/for-next, so this has to go via
Russell's tree. I'll take the patch and send Russell another pull
request then.
Cheers,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] msm: timer: Support sched_clock()
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:37:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F47CAF5.4000709@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F47C9AA.5060806@codeaurora.org>
On 24/02/12 17:32, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 02/24/12 09:24, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 24/02/12 17:09, David Brown wrote:
>>> I'll keep an eye on it then, and push it into the ARM soc tree when
>>> the dependencies are there.
>> The whole thing is that there's no dependency. The sched_clock() stuff
>> has hit mainline during the merge window. This patch could go in right
>> now, without any harm.
>>
>> What Russell pulled is just a cleanup to convert the last two platforms
>> having their own sched_clock() and not relying on our framework.
>>
>>
>
> This patch relies on the fact that the HAVE_SCHED_CLOCK config option no
> longer exists. We could push it in if the patch had that option added to
> the Kconfig, but then it would conflict with the removal of the Kconfig
> by 6905a65 (ARM: Make the sched_clock framework mandatory, 2012-01-18).
Ah! Indeed, you're perfectly right.
> So I guess we send it through the arm-soc tree?
I don't think arm-soc tracks rmk/for-next, so this has to go via
Russell's tree. I'll take the patch and send Russell another pull
request then.
Cheers,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-24 17:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-22 1:39 [PATCH] msm: timer: Support sched_clock() Stephen Boyd
2012-02-22 1:39 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-02-22 21:55 ` David Brown
2012-02-22 21:55 ` David Brown
2012-02-24 10:11 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-02-24 10:11 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-02-24 17:09 ` David Brown
2012-02-24 17:09 ` David Brown
2012-02-24 17:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-02-24 17:24 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-02-24 17:32 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-02-24 17:32 ` Stephen Boyd
2012-02-24 17:37 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2012-02-24 17:37 ` Marc Zyngier
2012-02-25 1:10 ` David Brown
2012-02-25 1:10 ` David Brown
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=4F47CAF5.4000709@arm.com \
--to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=davidb@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sboyd@codeaurora.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.