[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1274215434.1699.12.camel@localhost>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 13:43:54 -0700
From: john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
"Du, Alek" <alek.du@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] x86/mrst: add vrtc driver which serves as a wall
clock device
On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 11:15 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
>
> There is no particular reason why we need to read it in
> timekeeping_init(). Nothing in the kernel needs the correct wall time
> at that point. So we can safely move the setting of xtime to rtc wall
> clock time to a separate timekeeping_late_init() function.
>
> John ???
No big objections here. Still would like to keep the amount of time that
the kernel is up without xtime being initialized to a minimum. However
the generic RTC code already have this issue since some of them require
interrupts to be enabled to do a read, so pushing it off into a
_late_init() function is probably just a short term fix until we figure
out how to get the generic RTC code working better with the timekeeping
code.
Does the delayed init required by vrtc cause any trouble with
suspend/resume?
thanks
-john
--
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