On 11/14/2014 03:03 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 1:53 AM, Thierry Reding
<thierry.red...@gmail.com> 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!
What we usually do is send patches in the order the kernel boot process
needs them. First modify the kernel to know about 64-bit Tegra, add
earlyprintk support, make sure the early boot process spits out
something on the UART, then add whatever next item is missing (e.g.
clock driver, timers, ...). That way, every patch we apply can actually
be tested in the mainline kernel, since the code actually reaches that
point in execution.
If we were for example to send in a ton of driver patches for ARM64
right now, we couldn't test them. Quite possibly those patches wouldn't
fully work, and we'd just have churn fixing them up later once the base
CPU/SoC support was added. It's better to only upstream patches that can
actually be exercised in order to avoid that churn.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
