[PATCH] at91: fix arch_gettimeoffset fallout

[PATCH] at91: fix arch_gettimeoffset fallout

[Peter Korsgaard]

5cfc8ee0bb51 (ARM: convert arm to arch_gettimeoffset()) marked all of
at91 AND at91x40 as needing ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET, and hence no high
res timer support / accurate clock_gettime() - But only at91x40 needs it.

Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@barco.com>
---
 arch/arm/Kconfig |    1 -
 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
index 553b7cf..a1907b2 100644
--- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
@@ -271,7 +271,6 @@ config ARCH_AT91
 	bool "Atmel AT91"
 	select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
 	select HAVE_CLK
-	select ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET
 	help
 	  This enables support for systems based on the Atmel AT91RM9200,
 	  AT91SAM9 and AT91CAP9 processors.
-- 
1.7.1

[PATCH] at91: fix arch_gettimeoffset fallout

[john stultz]

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 15:31 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> 5cfc8ee0bb51 (ARM: convert arm to arch_gettimeoffset()) marked all of
> at91 AND at91x40 as needing ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET, and hence no high
> res timer support / accurate clock_gettime() - But only at91x40 needs it.

Huh, sorry I missed that subtlety! Thanks for hunting this down!

Acked-by: John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>

> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@barco.com>
> ---
>  arch/arm/Kconfig |    1 -
>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> index 553b7cf..a1907b2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig
> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig
> @@ -271,7 +271,6 @@ config ARCH_AT91
>  	bool "Atmel AT91"
>  	select ARCH_REQUIRE_GPIOLIB
>  	select HAVE_CLK
> -	select ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET
>  	help
>  	  This enables support for systems based on the Atmel AT91RM9200,
>  	  AT91SAM9 and AT91CAP9 processors.

[PATCH] at91: fix arch_gettimeoffset fallout

[Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD]

On 15:31 Fri 17 Sep     , Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> 5cfc8ee0bb51 (ARM: convert arm to arch_gettimeoffset()) marked all of
> at91 AND at91x40 as needing ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET, and hence no high
> res timer support / accurate clock_gettime() - But only at91x40 needs it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@barco.com>
Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>

Best Regards,
J.

[PATCH] at91: fix arch_gettimeoffset fallout

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "john" == john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> writes:

 john> On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 15:31 +0200, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
 >> 5cfc8ee0bb51 (ARM: convert arm to arch_gettimeoffset()) marked all of
 >> at91 AND at91x40 as needing ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET, and hence no high
 >> res timer support / accurate clock_gettime() - But only at91x40 needs it.

 john> Huh, sorry I missed that subtlety! Thanks for hunting this down!

No problem - Thanks for cleaning up the timer handling in the first
place.

-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard

[PATCH] at91: fix arch_gettimeoffset fallout

[Peter Korsgaard]

>>>>> "Jean-Christophe" == Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com> writes:

Hi,

 >> 5cfc8ee0bb51 (ARM: convert arm to arch_gettimeoffset()) marked all of
 >> at91 AND at91x40 as needing ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET, and hence no high
 >> res timer support / accurate clock_gettime() - But only at91x40 needs it.
 >> 
 >> Signed-off-by: Peter Korsgaard <peter.korsgaard@barco.com>

 Jean-Christophe> Acked-by: Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD
 <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>

Thanks, submitted to rmk's patch tracker as 6400 with those two
acked-by's and a a cc to stable@


-- 
Bye, Peter Korsgaard