RE: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-19 Thread Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:52 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:42:24PM +, Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan wrote: > > Hello Sascha, > > > > On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:30 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > As John already said, there's the read_boot_clock64() interface which > > > should

RE: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-19 Thread Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan
On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 8:52 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:42:24PM +, Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan wrote: > > Hello Sascha, > > > > On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:30 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > As John already said, there's the read_boot_clock64() interface which > > > should

Re: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-17 Thread Sascha Hauer
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:42:24PM +, Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan wrote: > Hello Sascha, > > On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:30 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > > As John already said, there's the read_boot_clock64() interface which > > should be used here. > > By using the read_boot_clock64() interface you

Re: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-17 Thread Sascha Hauer
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 02:42:24PM +, Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan wrote: > Hello Sascha, > > On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:30 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > > As John already said, there's the read_boot_clock64() interface which > > should be used here. > > By using the read_boot_clock64() interface you

RE: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-17 Thread Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan
Hello Sascha, On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:30 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > As John already said, there's the read_boot_clock64() interface which > should be used here. > By using the read_boot_clock64() interface you can make sure that you > only provide the functionality when it's actually supposed

RE: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-17 Thread Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan
Hello Sascha, On Wednesday, May 17, 2017 2:30 PM Sascha Hauer wrote: > As John already said, there's the read_boot_clock64() interface which > should be used here. > By using the read_boot_clock64() interface you can make sure that you > only provide the functionality when it's actually supposed

Re: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-17 Thread Sascha Hauer
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:22:29AM +, Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan wrote: > Hello, > > Any input on this topic? As John already said, there's the read_boot_clock64() interface which should be used here. In your patch you provide a generic option (BOOT_TIME_PRESERVE) which only works as expected in

Re: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-17 Thread Sascha Hauer
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 08:22:29AM +, Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan wrote: > Hello, > > Any input on this topic? As John already said, there's the read_boot_clock64() interface which should be used here. In your patch you provide a generic option (BOOT_TIME_PRESERVE) which only works as expected in

RE: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-16 Thread Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan
Hello, Any input on this topic? Kind Regards, Bogdan On Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:55 PM Bogdan Mirea wrote: > > Hi Oleksij, > > On Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:27 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > Hi Bogdan, > > > > are there any example what and how bootloader should do to provide > > correct

RE: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-16 Thread Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan
Hello, Any input on this topic? Kind Regards, Bogdan On Thursday, May 04, 2017 1:55 PM Bogdan Mirea wrote: > > Hi Oleksij, > > On Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:27 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > > Hi Bogdan, > > > > are there any example what and how bootloader should do to provide > > correct

RE: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-04 Thread Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan
Hi Oleksij, On Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:27 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > Hi Bogdan, > > are there any example what and how bootloader should do to provide > correct values? I will give you an example with a real behavior on Renesas RCAR Gen3 Salvator-x: We have an ARM64 SOC with the following

RE: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-04 Thread Mirea, Bogdan-Stefan
Hi Oleksij, On Thursday, May 04, 2017 12:27 PM, Oleksij Rempel wrote: > Hi Bogdan, > > are there any example what and how bootloader should do to provide > correct values? I will give you an example with a real behavior on Renesas RCAR Gen3 Salvator-x: We have an ARM64 SOC with the following

Re: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-04 Thread Oleksij Rempel
Hi Bogdan, are there any example what and how bootloader should do to provide correct values? On 05/03/2017 12:59 PM, Bogdan Mirea wrote: This option enables Boot Time Preservation between Bootloader and Linux Kernel. It is based on the idea that the Bootloader (or any other early firmware)

Re: [PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-04 Thread Oleksij Rempel
Hi Bogdan, are there any example what and how bootloader should do to provide correct values? On 05/03/2017 12:59 PM, Bogdan Mirea wrote: This option enables Boot Time Preservation between Bootloader and Linux Kernel. It is based on the idea that the Bootloader (or any other early firmware)

[PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-03 Thread Bogdan Mirea
This option enables Boot Time Preservation between Bootloader and Linux Kernel. It is based on the idea that the Bootloader (or any other early firmware) will start the HW Timer and Linux Kernel will count the time starting with the cycles elapsed since timer start. The sched_clock part is

[PATCH v2] Added "Preserve Boot Time Support"

2017-05-03 Thread Bogdan Mirea
This option enables Boot Time Preservation between Bootloader and Linux Kernel. It is based on the idea that the Bootloader (or any other early firmware) will start the HW Timer and Linux Kernel will count the time starting with the cycles elapsed since timer start. The sched_clock part is