Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:57:05 +0900 | From | Simon Horman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH/RFC] arm: arch_timer: Do not set C3STOP in case CPU_IDLE=n |
| |
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.
| |