Dear Arnd On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:49:32 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 November 2015 14:59:40 Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > On Monday 02 November 2015 11:03:34 Jisheng Zhang wrote: > > > > On Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:42:01 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > I'd be happier with a solution that keeps the DT describing the hardware > > > and not the way we expect Linux to use it, and instead has some heuristic > > > in the selection of the delay timer. At the moment, we purely base this > > > on the frequency, which as you say is suboptimal. > > > > > > One possible way to improve this would be to add an optional 'latency' > > > property to the DT nodes (or the driver), and use a combination of latency > > > and resolution to make the decision. > > > > Got it. Thanks for the suggestions. The 'latency' here seems a 'rating' > > similar as the one in clocksource. I will cook a series for review: > > > > patch 1 to make register_current_timer_delay() aware of 'rating' > > > > patch 2 to set rating of arch timer as 400 > > > > patch 3 to add timer based delay support to dw_apb_timer whose rating is > > 300 > > Ok. Just to make sure I got this right: your plan is to use the existing > 'rating' setting as a primary indication, and fall back to comparing the > frequency if the rating is the same? Yes, this is my plan. Thanks, Jisheng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
