From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] clocksource: dw_apb_timer_of: support timer-based delay
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 09:49:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6198599.NHtefZl19R@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151103145940.18ab648f@xhacker>
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?
Arnd
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Cc: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>,
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, 03 Nov 2015 09:49:32 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <6198599.NHtefZl19R@wuerfel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151103145940.18ab648f@xhacker>
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?
Arnd
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-03 8:49 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 [this message]
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=6198599.NHtefZl19R@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.