From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:59:33 +0100 Subject: [RFC 2/2] clocksource: don't suspend/resume when unused In-Reply-To: <20150116104804.GE3843@piout.net> References: <1421399874-29119-1-git-send-email-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> <1421399874-29119-3-git-send-email-alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com> <20150116103530.GB3843@piout.net> <54B8EA54.5020002@linaro.org> <20150116104804.GE3843@piout.net> Message-ID: <54B8EF15.4000602@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/16/2015 11:48 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > Hi, > > On 16/01/2015 at 11:39:16 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote : >>> Isn't that already the case? >>> Right now, if you call clocksource_suspend, it doesn't matter whether >>> the clocksource has an enable or not, it will be suspended. Maybe I'm >>> mistaken but my patch doesn't seem to change that behaviour. >> >> Actually, if there is no enable/disable callback, then CLOCK_SOURCE_USED >> will be never set, hence the condition will always fail and the suspend >> callback won't be called. >> > > It is set in clocksource_enable/disable, even if there is no > enable/disable callback. Ah, right. But shouldn't we set the flag only if the callback is present and succeed as Boris mentioned it ? > I only found direct calls to ->enable() in > timekeeper.c, did I miss some? -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog