On 16/01/2015 at 12:07:42 +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote :
> On 16/01/2015 at 11:59:33 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote :
> > On 01/16/2015 11:48 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >On 16/01/2015 at 11:39:16 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote :
> > >>>Isn't that already the case?
> > >>>Right now, if you call clocksource_suspend, it doesn't matter whether
> > >>>the clocksource has an enable or not, it will be suspended. Maybe I'm
> > >>>mistaken but my patch doesn't seem to change that behaviour.
> > >>
> > >>Actually, if there is no enable/disable callback, then CLOCK_SOURCE_USED
> > >>will be never set, hence the condition will always fail and the suspend
> > >>callback won't be called.
> > >>
> > >
> > >It is set in clocksource_enable/disable, even if there is no
> > >enable/disable callback.
> >
> > Ah, right. But shouldn't we set the flag only if the callback is present and
> > succeed as Boris mentioned it ?
> >
>
> What Boris was suggesting was that if the enable exist, set it only if
> it succeed. Which gives something like that:
>
> int clocksource_enable(struct clocksource *cs)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> if (cs->enable)
> ret = cs->enable(cs);
>
> if (!ret)
> cs->flags |= CLOCK_SOURCE_USED;
>
> return 0;
Obviously, that is
return ret;
> }
>
> I will use that version in v2.
>
>
> --
> Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
> http://free-electrons.com
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/
