All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: support timer-based delay
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:48:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56372366.6090905@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151102105113.72aade85@xhacker>

On 11/02/2015 03:51 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:37:01 +0100
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/2015 12:09 PM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>> Dear Daniel,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:44:46 +0100
>>> Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@....> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2015 09:27 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>>> Implement an ARM delay timer to be used for udelay(). This allows us to
>>>>> skip the delay loop calibration at boot on Marvell BG2, BG2Q, BG2CD
>>>>> platforms. And after this patch, udelay() will be unaffected by CPU
>>>>> frequency changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/clocksource/Kconfig           | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>>     drivers/clocksource/dw_apb_timer_of.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> index a7726db..7b081805 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -29,6 +29,16 @@ config DW_APB_TIMER_OF
>>>>>     	select DW_APB_TIMER
>>>>>     	select CLKSRC_OF
>>>>>
>>>>> +config DW_APB_TIMER_BASED_DELAY
>>>>> +	bool "DW APB timer based delay"
>>>>> +	depends on ARM && DW_APB_TIMER_OF
>>>>> +	default n
>>>>> +	help
>>>>> +	  This option enables support for using the DW APB timer to
>>>>> +	  implement timer-based delay. It is useful for skiping the
>>>>> +	  delay loop calibration at boot on some platforms. And the
>>>>> +	  udelay() will be unaffected by CPU frequency changes.
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want it to be optional ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because in some platforms which has arm arch timer, this dw apb timer
>>> delay isn't needed, the arch timer is better. So we want it be optional
>>> so that the platforms which need this feature select it manually when config
>>> the kernel.
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong. If you have the arch timer, you don't need the
>
> Yes, I don't need the dw apb timer if we have arch timer,
>
>> dw apb timer at all, no ? So the selection would be arch arm timer *or*
>> dw_apb_timer ? not arch_arm_timer for delay and dw_apb_timer for
>> clockevents, right ?
>
> Yes, if we have arch timer, I prefer to use it for clockevent and delay.
>
> Could you please provide suggestion how to handle this case?

If I follow the logic of arch_arm_timer is better than dw_apb timer.

1. The arch_arm_timer is present

  => dw_apb timer is not used at all

  CONFIG_ARM_ARCH_TIMER=y
  # CONFIG_DW_APB_TIMER is not set

2. The arch_arm_timer is *not* present

  => dw_apb_timer is used with delay code

  # CONFIG_ARM_ARCH_TIMER is not set
  CONFIG_DW_APB_TIMER=y

In both cases, DW_APB_TIMER_BASED_DELAY is not needed.


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>
To: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Arnd Bergmann <arnd.bergmann@linaro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: support timer-based delay
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:48:38 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <56372366.6090905@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151102105113.72aade85@xhacker>

On 11/02/2015 03:51 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> Dear Daniel,
>
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:37:01 +0100
> Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>
>> On 10/30/2015 12:09 PM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>> Dear Daniel,
>>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 11:44:46 +0100
>>> Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@....> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/30/2015 09:27 AM, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
>>>>> Implement an ARM delay timer to be used for udelay(). This allows us to
>>>>> skip the delay loop calibration at boot on Marvell BG2, BG2Q, BG2CD
>>>>> platforms. And after this patch, udelay() will be unaffected by CPU
>>>>> frequency changes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     drivers/clocksource/Kconfig           | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>>     drivers/clocksource/dw_apb_timer_of.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     2 files changed, 26 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> index a7726db..7b081805 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/Kconfig
>>>>> @@ -29,6 +29,16 @@ config DW_APB_TIMER_OF
>>>>>     	select DW_APB_TIMER
>>>>>     	select CLKSRC_OF
>>>>>
>>>>> +config DW_APB_TIMER_BASED_DELAY
>>>>> +	bool "DW APB timer based delay"
>>>>> +	depends on ARM && DW_APB_TIMER_OF
>>>>> +	default n
>>>>> +	help
>>>>> +	  This option enables support for using the DW APB timer to
>>>>> +	  implement timer-based delay. It is useful for skiping the
>>>>> +	  delay loop calibration at boot on some platforms. And the
>>>>> +	  udelay() will be unaffected by CPU frequency changes.
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Why do you want it to be optional ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Because in some platforms which has arm arch timer, this dw apb timer
>>> delay isn't needed, the arch timer is better. So we want it be optional
>>> so that the platforms which need this feature select it manually when config
>>> the kernel.
>>
>> Correct me if I am wrong. If you have the arch timer, you don't need the
>
> Yes, I don't need the dw apb timer if we have arch timer,
>
>> dw apb timer at all, no ? So the selection would be arch arm timer *or*
>> dw_apb_timer ? not arch_arm_timer for delay and dw_apb_timer for
>> clockevents, right ?
>
> Yes, if we have arch timer, I prefer to use it for clockevent and delay.
>
> Could you please provide suggestion how to handle this case?

If I follow the logic of arch_arm_timer is better than dw_apb timer.

1. The arch_arm_timer is present

  => dw_apb timer is not used at all

  CONFIG_ARM_ARCH_TIMER=y
  # CONFIG_DW_APB_TIMER is not set

2. The arch_arm_timer is *not* present

  => dw_apb_timer is used with delay code

  # CONFIG_ARM_ARCH_TIMER is not set
  CONFIG_DW_APB_TIMER=y

In both cases, DW_APB_TIMER_BASED_DELAY is not needed.


-- 
  <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs

Follow Linaro:  <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog


  reply	other threads:[~2015-11-02  8:48 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 [this message]
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
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=56372366.6090905@linaro.org \
    --to=daniel.lezcano@linaro.org \
    --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.