Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

On 16 May 2018 at 10:20, Baolin Wang wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 15 May 2018 at 18:27, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

On 16 May 2018 at 10:20, Baolin Wang wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > On 15 May 2018 at 18:27, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the >>> timekeeping. >>> >>> 1. We have

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

HI Daniel, On 15 May 2018 at 21:56, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the >> timekeeping. >> >> 1. We have too many different ways of

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

HI Daniel, On 15 May 2018 at 21:56, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the >> timekeeping. >> >> 1. We have too many different ways of dealing with persistent

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

Hi Daniel, On 15 May 2018 at 18:27, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the >> timekeeping. >> >> 1. We have too many different ways of

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

Hi Daniel, On 15 May 2018 at 18:27, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the >> timekeeping. >> >> 1. We have too many different ways of dealing with persistent

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > Hi, > > We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the > timekeeping. > > 1. We have too many different ways of dealing with persistent timekeeping > across architectures, so it is hard for one driver to

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > Hi, > > We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the > timekeeping. > > 1. We have too many different ways of dealing with persistent timekeeping > across architectures, so it is hard for one driver to

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > Hi, > > We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the > timekeeping. > > 1. We have too many different ways of dealing with persistent timekeeping > across architectures, so it is hard for one driver to

Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:55:26PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: > Hi, > > We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the > timekeeping. > > 1. We have too many different ways of dealing with persistent timekeeping > across architectures, so it is hard for one driver to

[RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

Hi, We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the timekeeping. 1. We have too many different ways of dealing with persistent timekeeping across architectures, so it is hard for one driver to compatable with different architectures. 2. On some platforms (such as

[RFC PATCH 00/10] Add persistent clock support

Hi, We will meet below issues when compensating the suspend time for the timekeeping. 1. We have too many different ways of dealing with persistent timekeeping across architectures, so it is hard for one driver to compatable with different architectures. 2. On some platforms (such as