Re: [PATCH] timekeeping: Move persistent clock registration code from ARM to kernel

[Daniel Lezcano]

On 11/15/2014 01:51 AM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Nov 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Thierry Reding
> > > > > <thierry.reding@xxxxxxxxx> 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 â 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

--
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/