lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 39/41] clocksource: vf_pit: Migrate to new 'set-state' interface
On 03-07-15, 13:11, Stefan Agner wrote:
> On 2015-07-03 10:57, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 03-07-15, 10:10, Stefan Agner wrote:
> >> > .features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT,
> >> > - .set_mode = pit_set_mode,
> >> > + .set_state_shutdown = pit_shutdown,
> >> > + .set_state_periodic = pit_set_periodic,
> >>
> >> I'm not really familiar with the interface, but given that we announce
> >> the feature CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT shouldn't we add a set_state_oneshot
> >> callback here?
> >
> > We weren't doing anything in pit_set_mode(ONESHOT) and so that
> > callback is not implemented. In case you need to do something in
> > set_state_oneshot(), we can add it back.
>
> True, weren't doing anything. I wonder if that is right. Afaik, we
> should set the same timer for oneshot too, hence call
> pit_set_next_event. With your change we can just reuse the same function
> (pit_set_periodic) for set_state_oneshot.

pit_set_next_event() will be called by clockevents core directly after
tying to set the device in oneshot mode. And so no changes are
required.

> To maintain the atomicity of the changes, this would need to be fixed in
> a separate patch anyway. So this change looks good to me:
>
> Acked-by: Stefan Agner <stefan@agner.ch>

Thanks.

> I guess "clockevents: Allow set-state callbacks to be optional" makes it
> before this patch? Otherwise we would call a null pointer...

Yeah, I have mentioned this in the cover-letter that there are
dependencies over clockevent core's next branch.

--
viresh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-03 13:41    [W:0.042 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site