Re: [PATCH 33/36] AArch64: Generic timers support

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Thursday 12 July 2012, John Stultz wrote:
> 
> On 07/12/2012 10:31 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 09:57:33 -0700, John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So following ia64's method is probably better then copying the 8253's
> >> rate if you're not concerned about tick-granularity error.
> > The 8253 is completely meaningless in our case (though I'm sure someone
> > could try and bold one on the side of an Aarch64 CPU...), so going the ia64
> > way is probably best (erm... this last bit doesn't sound quite right,
> > doesn't it?).
> 
> Sorry, the "copying the 8253's" bit didn't come out sarcastic enough.  :)
> 
> The best solution would be to include the actual tick-granularity, but 
> given its not really an architecture constant (which CLOCK_TICK_RATE 
> assumes), that probably wouldn't be appropriate.

Hmm, in the quest to eliminate CLOCK_TICK_RATE entirely, could we
make a Kconfig symbol that is selected for all architectures that
(may) rely on a periodic timer tick and require this to be set?

Architectures that always have a working clock source would then just
not include the timex.h header and #define ACT_HZ HZ in common code.

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/