Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:30:14 +0100 | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Move persistent clock registration code from ARM to kernel |
| |
On 11/15/2014 01:51 AM, Anatol Pomozov wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote: >>> On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Thierry Reding >>>>> <thierry.reding@gmail.com> 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. > > Could you please be more specific what exactly does not work? Are you > talking about delay timer? But my patch does not touch any delay timer > code. I can compile tegra_timer for ARM. And this code is not usable > on arm64 anyway because whole Tegra is not ported yet. Somebody should > make additional changes to upstream tegra20_timer.c code. I might try > to do it later when Tegra will be ported. > >>> 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? > > This is not the point. I provided patch that fixes the issue. Other > people said that they have ideas how to do it different (and better) > way. So I am asking to share these ideas represented as a patch.
I think your issue is solved [1] ... for the moment.
Thanks -- Daniel
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/9/264
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |