From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: shinya.kuribayashi.px@renesas.com (Shinya Kuribayashi) Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:06:06 +0900 Subject: [PATCH v2 2/2] ARM: delay: allow timer-based delay implementation to be selected In-Reply-To: <20120720101751.GB26658@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> References: <4FFEFDE3.5000403@codeaurora.org> <4FFF8509.2050302@renesas.com> <20120713085746.GA18079@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20120713111337.GH18079@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <5004D78E.4050606@renesas.com> <5005176C.6050904@renesas.com> <20120718175233.GB16928@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <50082598.5090706@arm.com> <20120720101751.GB26658@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <500E657E.8070301@renesas.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Will, Jonathan, On 7/20/2012 7:17 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 04:19:52PM +0100, Jonathan Austin wrote: >> We should probably also ignore and additional registration calls, not just >> those made after the delay loop has been calibrated... >> >> Something like the patch below should do the trick. > > [...] > > Cheers, pushed into my delay branch. Thanks for the registration machanism. It looks nice, and works for me on a Cortex-A9 SMP platform with a non-arch_timer counter. I've picked up a revised version of the patch from will/delay and merged it into our local development branch. We'll give it a try in different conditions, UP and SMP, with/without DVFS and so on, and let you know if I find anything. -- Shinya Kuribayashi Renesas Electronics