lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] omap changes for v2.6.39 merge window
From
Date
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 14:31 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 02:24:17PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 12:21 +0100, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Whether its worth it or not is questionable - the above is more lines
> > > of code than many of the existing implementations, and we're not going
> > > to shrink the existing implementations by much (maybe one to three
> > > lines.) The only thing we gain is the ability to select an implementation
> > > at runtime.
> >
> > I believe this last point to be rather important if we plan to have this
> > mythical single kernel covering several architectures. It's also nice
> > for the A15 to be able to use some default sched_clock() implementation
> > as a fallback if the generic timers are not available for some reason.
>
> If ARM are going to architect a set of timers into the hardware, let's
> make sure that all such hardware has them so we can dig ourselves out
> of this crappy mess that we find ourselves in today.

As far as I know, A15 always has a set of generic timers.

It may be that they are not available (frequency not programmed into the
CNTFREQ register), or that someone decided to use a better alternative
(for some particular interpretation of "better").

Overall, it seems like we need some degree of flexibility to have
several sched_clock() implementations within a single image, whether it
is to support multiple platforms, or to allow a single architecture to
pick the best alternative given a set of initial conditions.

M.
--
Reality is an implementation detail.




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-04 15:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans