From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: khilman@ti.com (Kevin Hilman) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:55:19 -0800 Subject: [PATCH v3 0/7] Add common cpuidle code for consolidation. In-Reply-To: (Rob Lee's message of "Mon, 30 Jan 2012 21:02:06 -0600") References: <1327379854-12403-1-git-send-email-rob.lee@linaro.org> <871uqoj23b.fsf@ti.com> <87fwf3ehi3.fsf@ti.com> <20120129153459.GF15455@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <87obtjlepk.fsf@ti.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Rob Lee writes: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Kevin Hilman wrote: >> I noticed that the generic code uses ktime_get() for measuring time. On >> OMAP, we use getnstimeofday() because I while back I remember having >> problems with the interaction of CPUidle state measurements and system >> suspend. Any idle activity during system suspend/resume ktime_get() >> will WARN() because the timekeeping system has been suspended. > > It seems that all the time keeping functions including > getnstimeofday() now have the "WARN_ON(timekeeping_suspended)" or > WARN_ON_ONCE. ?So I'd like to stick with ktime_get unless I'm missing > something about the suspend warning or unless there is some other > reason why getnstieofday() is preferred. I agree. I've convinced myself that my use of getnstimeofday() is because of a problem that doesn't exist anymore in mainline, and now that the timekeeping core has been converted to use syscore_ops, use of ktime_get() is good. Kevin