From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:36:14 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 0/4] ARM 64 bit sched_clock take #2
In-Reply-To: <20130422153408.GD3791@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <51709FD7.8050408@gmail.com>
 <1366417746-24990-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org>
 <20130422153408.GD3791@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <517558EE.5020708@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 04/22/13 08:34, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 01:29:02AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> This is what I was thinking. I don't see why we can't move this to generic
>> code and have arm64 use it too. Those patches will follow once I find an
>> arm64 compiler.
>>
>> First two patches should probably go in even if the 64 bit stuff doesn't go in
>> at the same time.
>>
>> Stephen Boyd (4):
>>   ARM: sched_clock: Remove unused needs_suspend member
>>   ARM: sched_clock: Return suspended count earlier
>>   ARM: sched_clock: Add support for >32 bit sched_clock
>>   ARM: arch_timer: Move to setup_sched_clock_64()
>>
>>  arch/arm/include/asm/sched_clock.h |   5 +-
>>  arch/arm/kernel/arch_timer.c       |  14 +----
>>  arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c      | 111 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  3 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> I wanted to look at the series with more context, but I don't seem to be able
> to apply patch 2 and beyond to my tree, and I couldn't figure out what tree
> this series was based on.
>
> What do I need to use as the base for this series?

These are based on next-20130419.

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation