[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200802260125.33713.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 01:25:33 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@...el.com>
Cc: nicolas.ferre@....atmel.com, linux@...im.org.za,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2.6.25-rc2-git 2/2] atmel_tc clocksource/clockevent code
On Tuesday 26 February 2008, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote:
> > Another way to address that rm9200 issue would be to just rate
> > the TC clockevent source lower than the one based on the system
> > timer, so it's set up but never enabled ... and remember "t2_clk",
> > calling clk_enable() only when that clockevent device is active.
> >
> > That would address one half of the suspend/resume equation too,
> > ensuring that clock is disabled during suspend...
>
> Yes, we could probably do that. Which means we can just remove all the
> ifdeffery?
There'd still be the #ifdef for CONFIG_GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS,
unless all the platforms get updated to support that. Right
now it's a "patches available but not merged" situation.
> > The other half being: how to clk_disable(t0_clk) during system
> > suspend? (And t1_clk on some systems.) There's currently no
> > clocksource.set_mode() call; evidently there's an assumption that
> > such counters cost no power, so they can always be left running.
>
> Yes...that would be a clocksource core issue I guess. Better leave that
> for later...
My thoughts exactly. ;)
Plus a bit of puzzlement why that didn't trigger at least a
warning during AT91 suspend testing. There used to be warnings
there about clocks which were wrongly left enabled...
- Dave
--
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