linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: john.stultz@linaro.org (John Stultz)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] ARM: convert arm/arm64 arch timer to use CLKSRC_OF init
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:53:01 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5150D54D.1070004@linaro.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201303252236.23270.arnd@arndb.de>

On 03/25/2013 03:36 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 25 March 2013, Rob Herring wrote:
>> I count integrator-cp, realview, versatile and non-DT VExpress that do
>> this (not surprisingly) and 25 platforms or timer implementations plus
>> arm64 that do sched_clock setup in time_init. What's broken by not
>> moving these earlier?
> timekeeping_init() will leave the persistent_clock_exist variable as "false",
> which is read in rtc_suspend() and timekeeping_inject_sleeptime().

Are you mixing up the persistent_clock and sched_clock here? From a 
generic stand-point they have different requirements.

> For all I can tell, you will get a little jitter every time you
> do a suspend in that case. Or perhaps it means the system clock
> will be forwarded by the amount of time spent in suspend twice
> after wakeup, but I'm probably misreading the code for that case.

No, you shouldn't see timekeeping being incremented twice, we check in 
rtc_resume code if the persistent clock is present if so we won't inject 
any measured suspend time there. But you're probably right that we're 
being a little overly paranoid checking the same value twice.

As far as the benefit to the persistent clock: it is just a little 
better to use, since we can access it earlier in resume, prior to 
interrupts being enabled. So we should see less time error introduced 
each suspend.

thanks
-john

  reply	other threads:[~2013-03-25 22:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-03-20 22:34 [PATCH] ARM: convert arm/arm64 arch timer to use CLKSRC_OF init Rob Herring
2013-03-21 11:06 ` Mark Rutland
2013-03-21 11:35   ` Marc Zyngier
2013-03-21 12:52   ` Rob Herring
2013-03-25 17:26   ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2013-03-25 21:28     ` Rob Herring
2013-03-25 22:36       ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-03-25 22:53         ` John Stultz [this message]
2013-03-26  2:19           ` Rob Herring
2013-03-26  9:56           ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-03-25 23:07       ` Catalin Marinas
2013-04-23 21:23 ` [PATCH] ARM: OMAP: remove unused variable Arnd Bergmann
2013-04-23 21:26   ` Tony Lindgren

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=5150D54D.1070004@linaro.org \
    --to=john.stultz@linaro.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).