From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: john.stultz@linaro.org (John Stultz)
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2013 11:02:58 -0700
Subject: [PATCH v4 00/17] 64-bit friendly generic sched_clock()
In-Reply-To: <20131002174700.GF30298@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <1374189690-10810-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org>
 <51E88170.3080505@linaro.org>
 <20131002174700.GF30298@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <524C5FD2.5050406@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 10/02/2013 10:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 12:59:44AM +0100, John Stultz wrote:
>> On 07/18/2013 04:21 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> This patchset adds support for 64 bit counters in the generic
>>> sched_clock code and converts drivers over to use it. Based
>>> on v3.11-rc1.
>>>
>>> Changes since v3:
>>>   * Move to use seqcount to fix issues with 64-bit cyc counters
>>>   * Move to hrtimer to fix underflow/overflow errors in wraparound
>>>     calculation
>>>   * Use of 1 hour in clocks_calc_mult_shift
>>>   * Converted over drivers in drivers/clocksource
>> I've not been able to take a deep review yet, but this looks pretty much 
>> like what we discussed last week, so I'm happy with it so far. Has this 
>> gotten much testing (on both 32 and 64bit systems?)
>>
>> One detail: Most of this is likely to go in via tip/timers/core, but the 
>> 5/17 "arch_timer: Move to generic sched_clock" will need some 
>> synchronization with Catalin to make sure its ok to go in via tip. Not 
>> sure what other arm64 changes are pending that would depend or collide 
>> with that change.
> I wouldn't expect anything more than a trivial Kconfig clash with the arm64
> tree, if that.

So I also have a branch with these changes based on a branch with only
the prereqs that are already merged, so I can provide a pull request
that can go in via the aarch64 tree and won't collide with tip. Would
that be preferrable?

thanks
-john