From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 02:57:05 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] arm: arch_timer: Do not set C3STOP in case CPU_IDLE=n
Message-Id: <20130617025704.GA27933@verge.net.au>
List-Id: <linux-sh.vger.kernel.org>
References: <20130617002056.7646.54131.sendpatchset@w520>
 <20130617021342.GJ15043@verge.net.au>
 <CANqRtoTfiWFv0JWwJysi47gsSjJx9g3-FFMMzCYROWDPbndnYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANqRtoTfiWFv0JWwJysi47gsSjJx9g3-FFMMzCYROWDPbndnYQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, SH-Linux <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>, Shinya Kuribayashi <shinya.kuribayashi.px@renesas.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:47:11AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> Hi Simon,
> 
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:20:56AM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote:
> >> From: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
> >>
> >> Modify the ARM architected timer driver to not set C3STOP
> >> in case CPU_IDLE is disabled. This is a short term fix that
> >> allows use of high resolution timers even though no additional
> >> clock event is registered.
> >>
> >> Not-really-Signed-off-by: Magnus Damm <damm@opensource.se>
> >> ---
> >>
> >>  If someone cares about this case then perhaps it should be
> >>  moved up to the clock event main code. The same issue should
> >>  in theory trigger on all architectures, perhaps x86 people
> >>  hunting for low latency may try to disable CPU_IDLE?
> >>
> >>  I propose carrying this patch locally to enable high resolution
> >>  timers until CPU_IDLE and an additional clock event is supported.
> >>
> >>  Observed on r8a73a4 and APE6EVM.
> >
> > Hi Magnus,
> >
> > Is this patch intended to be picked up by me for the LTSI-3.4.25 based
> > backports that live in my renesas-backports tree?
> 
> Yes, correct.
> 
> The patch was mainly written to satisfy a feature request for your
> backports, but I noticed that the same issue exists in upstream as
> well.
> 
> Ideally I'd like to use the same code for the backport and upstream,
> but I am not sure if anyone in upstream really cares. The more long
> term solution is obviously to install a second clock event, perhaps
> that's good enough.
> 
> > If so, could you  clearly state this (below the '---' is fine) and
> > include a proper Sob line to indicate that it is fit to be merged
> > even if that merge is not into mainline.
> 
> Sure, but  I'd like to hear opinions from other people before
> resending. I will follow your recommendation in next version.

Thanks, I understand. I'll wait for discussion and a new version.