From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752249AbcISPxN (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:53:13 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f68.google.com ([209.85.215.68]:35518 "EHLO mail-lf0-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752098AbcISPxL (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Sep 2016 11:53:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 17:53:02 +0200 From: Krzysztof Kozlowski To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski , Olof Johansson , Kevin Hilman , arm@kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , Kukjin Kim , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , Javier Martinez Canillas , Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [GIT PULL 1/3] ARM: soc: exynos: Drivers for v4.9 Message-ID: <20160919155302.GA4447@kozik-book> References: <1474216788-17282-1-git-send-email-krzk@kernel.org> <1474216788-17282-2-git-send-email-krzk@kernel.org> <2663426.T8oUku18qe@wuerfel> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <2663426.T8oUku18qe@wuerfel> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 05:02:40PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 6:39:46 PM CEST Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > > Samsung drivers/soc update for v4.9: > > 1. Allow compile testing of exynos-mct clocksource driver on ARM64. > > 2. Document Exynos5433 PMU compatible (already used by clkout driver and more > > will be coming soon). > > Pulled into next/drivers, thanks > > Just for my understanding: why do we need the exynos-mct driver on ARM64 > but not the delay-timer portion of it? I think we want all of it but Doug's optimization 3252a646aa2c ("clocksource: exynos_mct: Only use 32-bits where possible") is not ARM64 friendly. One way of dealing with it would be to prepare two versions of exynos4_read_current_timer(). One reading only lower 32-bit value for ARMv7 and second (slow) reading lower and upper for ARMv8. > > Is there an advantage in using MCT over the architected timer on these > chips? If so, should we also have a way to use it as the delay timer? No, there is no real advantage... except that the SoC has some interesting "characteristics"... The timers are tightly coupled. Very tightly. I spent a lot of time and failed to boot my ARMv8 board without some MCT magic. Best regards, Krzysztof