From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 00/11] arm: omap: counter32k rework Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 10:22:46 +0200 Message-ID: <1986790.syN3WBv9AR@wuerfel> References: <1443559446-26969-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1443559446-26969-1-git-send-email-balbi@ti.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: Felipe Balbi , Tony Lindgren , daniel.lezcano@linaro.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , tglx@linutronix.de, Linux OMAP Mailing List List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 29 September 2015 15:43:55 Felipe Balbi wrote: > > the following patches de-obfuscate arch/arm/mach-omap2/timer.c > and start moving code to drivers/clocksource. So far only counter32k > has been moved over. > > Note that we can't get rid of all the code (yet) because there are > still platforms relying to legacy boot and because of the strong > coupling with OMAP's hwmod layer. > > This is, for now, an RFC and has be written on top of [1]. Boot tested > with AM335x and AM437x. > > [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-omap&m=144354336924308&w=2 Looks very nice! > ps: if anybody has a good idea on how to get rid of > register_persistent_clock(), please let me know I don't think we want to get rid of that, because it is the more accurate interface. IIRC systems that have an RTC will use timekeeping_inject_sleeptime64() in rtc_resume(). I don't know however how the two methods are coordinated, i.e. how the kernel ensures that exactly one of the two is used, but never both. Arnd