Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH NET-NEXT 01/10] clocksource: allow usage independent of timekeeping.c | From | Patrick Ohly <> | Date | Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:24:34 +0100 |
| |
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 15:09 +0000, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 15:46 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:03 +0000, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 14:01 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > > > > /** > > > > + * struct cyclecounter - hardware abstraction for a free running counter > > > > + * Provides completely state-free accessors to the underlying hardware. > > > > + * Depending on which hardware it reads, the cycle counter may wrap > > > > + * around quickly. Locking rules (if necessary) have to be defined > > > > + * by the implementor and user of specific instances of this API. > > > > + * > > > > + * @read: returns the current cycle value > > > > + * @mask: bitmask for two's complement > > > > + * subtraction of non 64 bit counters, > > > > + * see CLOCKSOURCE_MASK() helper macro > > > > + * @mult: cycle to nanosecond multiplier > > > > + * @shift: cycle to nanosecond divisor (power of two) > > > > + */ > > > > +struct cyclecounter { > > > > + cycle_t (*read)(const struct cyclecounter *cc); > > > > + cycle_t mask; > > > > + u32 mult; > > > > + u32 shift; > > > > +}; > > > > > > Where are these defined? I don't see any in created in your code. > > > > What do you mean with "these"? cycle_t? That type is defined in > > clocksource.h. This patch intentionally adds these definitions to the > > existing file because of the large conceptual overlap. > > No, your creating a new structure here that wasn't declared. I was > referring to "struct cyclecounter".
Sorry, I still don't see the problem. I'm declaring and defining struct cyclecounter here. Why should it also be declared (= "struct cyclecounter;") elsewhere?
> I did look up one of your prior > submission (Dec. 15) and reviewed that.
Right, I saw that a bit later.
> > In an earlier revision of the patch I had adapted clocksource itself so > > that it could be used outside of the time keeping code; John wanted me > > to use these smaller structs instead that you now find in the current > > patch. > > Well, I think your original idea was better.. I don't think we need the > duplication of underlying clocksource mechanics.
Please discuss this with John. I'd prefer to not get caught in the cross-fire of a discussion that I don't know enough about :-/
-- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.
| |