Re: [patch] input: Fix CLOCK_TICK_RATE usage ... [8/13]

[george anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:21:13PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 11:11:46PM +0100, Riley Williams wrote:
>>
>>>On most architectures, the said timer runs at 1,193,181.818181818 Hz.
>>
>>Wow.  That's more accurate than a highly expensive Caesium standard.
>>And there's one inside most architectures?  Wow, we're got a great
>>deal there, haven't we? 8)
> 
> 
> Well, it's unfortunately up to 400ppm off on most systems. Nevertheless
> this is the 'official' frequency, actually it's a NTSC dotclock (14.3181818)
> divided by 12.
> 
> 
>>> > Please do not add CLOCK_TICK_RATE to the ia64 timex.h header file.
>>>
>>>It needs to be declared there. The only question is regarding the
>>>value it is defined to, and it would have to be somebody with better
>>>knowledge of the ia64 than me who decides that. All I can do is to
>>>post a reasonable default until such decision is made.
>>
>>If this is the case, we have a dilema on ARM.  CLOCK_TICK_RATE has
>>been, and currently remains (at Georges distaste) a variable on
>>some platforms.  I shudder to think what this is doing to some of
>>the maths in Georges new time keeping and timer code.

So do I :)
> 
> 

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml