From: fthain@telegraphics.com.au (Finn Thain)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 01/13] arm: Fix mutual exclusion in arch_gettimeoffset
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 08:55:37 +1100 (AEDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1811140854280.371@nippy.intranet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181113092012.GI30658@n2100.armlinux.org.uk>
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 02:39:00PM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > You could remove the old arch_gettimeoffset API without dropping any
> > platforms.
> >
> > If no-one converts a given platform to the clocksource API it would mean
> > that the default 'jiffies' clocksource will get used on that platform.
> >
> > Clock resolution and timer precision would be degraded, but that might not
> > matter.
> >
> > Anyway, if someone who has this hardware is willing to test a clocksource
> > API conversion, they can let me know and I'll attempt that patch.
>
> There's reasons why that's not appropriate - such as not having two
> separate timers in order to supply a clocksource and separate clock
> event.
>
> Not all hardware is suited to the clocksource + clockevent idea.
>
Sorry, I don't follow.
AFAIK, clocksources and clock event devices are orthogonal concepts. There
are platforms with !ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET && !GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS (and
every other combination).
A clocksource read method just provides a cycle count, and in this sense
arch_gettimeoffset() is equivalent to a clocksource.
If these two arm platforms have an existing clock event device which
somehow precludes any new clocksources, why doesn't that also render
arch_gettimeoffset() impossible?
--
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-13 21:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <cover.1541995959.git.fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
2018-11-12 4:12 ` [RFC PATCH 01/13] arm: Fix mutual exclusion in arch_gettimeoffset Finn Thain
2018-11-12 8:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-13 3:39 ` Finn Thain
2018-11-13 9:20 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-11-13 21:55 ` Finn Thain [this message]
2018-11-13 23:43 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-11-14 1:35 ` Michael Schmitz
2018-11-14 7:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-11-15 1:34 ` Michael Schmitz
2018-11-14 3:17 ` Finn Thain
2018-11-14 14:16 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-11-14 14:58 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2018-11-14 18:11 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-11-15 4:12 ` Finn Thain
2018-11-16 17:47 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2018-11-16 22:49 ` Finn Thain
2018-11-17 3:00 ` Michael Schmitz
2018-11-14 12:05 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
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=alpine.LNX.2.21.1811140854280.371@nippy.intranet \
--to=fthain@telegraphics.com.au \
--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