From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux)
Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 00:19:19 +0100
Subject: [RFC PATCH] arm: move timer init to late_timer_init
In-Reply-To: <20110502221522.GG13724@game.jcrosoft.org>
References: <1304368940-19340-1-git-send-email-plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>
	<20110502222211.GA28001@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
	<20110502221522.GG13724@game.jcrosoft.org>
Message-ID: <20110502231919.GH28001@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, May 03, 2011 at 12:15:22AM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> On 23:22 Mon 02 May     , Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 10:42:20PM +0200, Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD wrote:
> > > and add global early device init
> > > this will init earlytimer and will try to probe 1 or 2 timers for clockevents
> > > and clocksource
> > 
> > Why should this change the positioning of sched_clock initialization
> > too?
> > 
> > You know, to spend time sorting out the sched_clock crap that platform
> > people came up with, to get sched_clock working at the right point in
> > the init sequence so that everything is happy, and then to have all
> > that work undone one kernel version later... well, why did I even bother.
> so is it ok to put the early init in time_init for you?

If it works there, then there's no problem.  I'm just left wondering why
you decided to try the late_time_init() thing in the first place.  Was
there a specific reason?