From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: plagnioj@jcrosoft.com (Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD) Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:52:32 +0100 Subject: [RFC 1/2] AT91: Support SAM9260 and SAM9G20-based boards in the same kernel image In-Reply-To: <4D35CB56.8070603@xenomai.org> References: <1295113835-6776-1-git-send-email-albin.tonnerre@free-electrons.com> <20110117075738.GI14798@game.jcrosoft.org> <20110118070016.GA9605@pc-ran3241> <20110118150030.GO14798@game.jcrosoft.org> <20110118153241.GE9719@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <4D35CB56.8070603@xenomai.org> Message-ID: <20110118185232.GU14798@game.jcrosoft.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 18:18 Tue 18 Jan , Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 04:00:30PM +0100, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote: > >> this idea is to do not have CONFIG_ARCH_AT91SAM9G20 anymore only 9260 > >> > >> and detect it > >> > >> but the man issue is the CLOCK_TICK_RATE which is different between both of > >> them except if we use a common one for those soc or the sam9/11 we could not > >> put them in the same kernel > > > > If you switch to clocksource/clockevents, then I think CLOCK_TICK_RATE > > is irrelevant as time advances according to the interval measured by > > the previous and current clocksource read, rather than 1/HZ intervals. > > > > However, I'm never happy to say "just set CLOCK_TICK_RATE to some random > > value that's a multiple of HZ" because I can't convince myself that these > > don't have any effect when using clocksources. The list of symbols which > > depend on CLOCK_TICK_RATE are: > > > > ACTHZ > > LATCH > > TICK_NSEC > > TICK_USEC_TO_NSEC > > LOW_RES_NSEC > > MONOTONIC_RES_NSEC > > NSEC_PER_JIFFY > > KTIME_LOW_RES > > > > and if you grep for those outside of arch/, you find them being used in > > a fair amount of code under kernel/, as well as the odd driver here and > > there. > > at91rm9200_time.c even seems to use LATCH, even though the clockevent > frequency is not explicitly set to CLOCK_TICK_RATE. we can fix it but the main idea is to allow the sam9/11 to be compiled together in the same kernel and the rm9200 is not a arm926ejs but a arm920t. So the issue is not really important for this possiblity Best Regards, J.