From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 11:48:48 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/5] ARM: twd: Add context save restore support In-Reply-To: References: <1295859080-15259-1-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <1295859080-15259-4-git-send-email-santosh.shilimkar@ti.com> <20110124110609.GJ16202@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110124111114.GA19409@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20110125112946.GA13300@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110125114848.GC13300@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 05:10:37PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: > As I was suspecting the one shot mode wouldn't work it. Collin > just confirmed it. > To make it fully work it needs control register save restore. > And that can be managed within TWD library so that every platform > doesn't have to bother of calling it from their idle code. > > Do you prefer that as a separate patch or I can post a new version > in which can add your fix + per cpu control register shadowing ? I said earlier: | The next question is can we teach the generic time infrastructure about | this so we don't have to modify every clock event driver for it? We | really need to get away from having this kind of knowledge buried down | in the lowest levels of every driver. IOW, if we go into a PM idle mode, when we come back out we need to call clockevent set_mode to ensure that the control register is properly reset. I don't think its right to have this kind of knowledge buried in each and every clockevent driver.