From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Move persistent clock registration code from ARM to kernel Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2014 01:18:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: <1415388855-35074-1-git-send-email-anatol.pomozov@gmail.com> <20141110095325.GC12126@ulmo> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-tegra-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Anatol Pomozov Cc: Thierry Reding , Stephen Warren , Daniel Lezcano , Russell King , LKML , "linux-tegra-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , Tony Lindgren , Mark Rutland , John Stultz List-Id: linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > >> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Thierry Reding > >> wrote: > >> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:34:15AM -0800, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > >> >> ARM timekeeping functionality allows to register persistent/boot clock dynamically. > >> >> This code is arch-independent and can be useful on other plaforms as well. > >> >> > >> >> As a byproduct of this change, tegra20_timer becomes ARM64 compatible. > >> >> > >> >> Tested: backported the change to chromeos-3.14 kernel ran on tegra 64bit > >> >> board, made sure high-resolution clock works. > >> > > >> > Using this on an upstream kernel doesn't work, though, because 64-bit > >> > ARM doesn't implement struct delay_timer which the driver needs since > >> > v3.17. > >> > > >> > But I suppose the delay timer infrastructure could be moved into the > >> > core similar to the persistent and boot clock as this patch does. > >> > >> Thanks. It makes sense, I will send it in a separate patch, once this > >> one will be reviewed. On our kernel I haven't seen this issue as we > >> still use 3.14. > > > > That's why you should test/compile your stuff on latest greatest and > > not on a year old conglomorate of unknown provenance. :) > > Unfortunately it is not possible to test this patch with upstream. > There is no ARM64 bit support for Tegra yet. I am trying to > cleanup/upstream my ChromeOS patches and this clock patch in > particular makes one small step towards this goal. Also Thierry > mentioned that he works on full ARM64 Tegra support and it is really > exciting! Everything is exciting, but it does not change the fact, that this patch cannot work on current upstream. > So what I suppose to do with my patch? If it does not work could > anyone provide patch that removes ARM arch dependency from > tegra20_timer.c? Huch? You want other people to solve your problems? Thanks, tglx