[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1170288912.9781.177.camel@imap.mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:15:12 -0800
From: Daniel Walker <dwalker@...sta.com>
To: tglx@...utronix.de
Cc: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/23] clocksource: increase initcall priority
On Thu, 2007-02-01 at 00:23 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 14:47 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > So don't assume any platform doesn't use clocksource initcalls.
> >
> > What does your OMAP clocksource do now ? I thought one of the changes
> > that you made was to have both 32k and mpu both registered ..
>
> It is up to the clocksource driver, when the clocksource_register() call
> is done. This may happen in early boot as well as after initializing
> some other things first.
>
> Johns clocksource code works with ARM which does the register call in
> timer_init() as well as with some other hardware which gets initialized
> late in the boot process.
>
> clocksource_initcall is simply superfluid.
>
My position has always been that clocksources should be registered as
early as possible .. The fs_initcall() usage is a compromise stemming
from early resistance that John, and you gave to moving the clocks up in
the initcall sequence. the clocksource_initcall() exists only to allow
the clocks easily be raised if it was needed ..
I'm glad that you, John, and myself have come to a consensus on the
issue offline ..
Daniel
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists