From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marc Zyngier Subject: Re: [PATCH] msm: timer: Support sched_clock() Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:37:57 +0000 Message-ID: <4F47CAF5.4000709@arm.com> References: <1329874777-12758-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20120222215533.GA31480@codeaurora.org> <4F476242.2020909@arm.com> <20120224170901.GA9312@codeaurora.org> <4F47C7C5.4090806@arm.com> <4F47C9AA.5060806@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from service87.mimecast.com ([91.220.42.44]:39732 "EHLO service87.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752685Ab2BXRiC convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Feb 2012 12:38:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4F47C9AA.5060806@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org To: Stephen Boyd Cc: David Brown , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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... From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 17:37:57 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] msm: timer: Support sched_clock() In-Reply-To: <4F47C9AA.5060806@codeaurora.org> References: <1329874777-12758-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20120222215533.GA31480@codeaurora.org> <4F476242.2020909@arm.com> <20120224170901.GA9312@codeaurora.org> <4F47C7C5.4090806@arm.com> <4F47C9AA.5060806@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <4F47CAF5.4000709@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.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...