[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110301202611.GC27107@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 20:26:11 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Stuart Menefy <stuart.menefy@...com>,
Peppe CAVALLARO <peppe.cavallaro@...com>,
"linux-sh@...r.kernel.org" <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH (sh-2.6) 1/4] clksource: Generic timer infrastructure
On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 05:43:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 March 2011, Stuart Menefy wrote:
> > On 24/02/11 17:20, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > Also, what is the difference between this and clkdev?
> >
> > clkdev can be used to find a struct clk, which is fine if you just want to
> > read the time. In this instance we want to get interrupts from the timer
> > hardware, which isn't supported by the clk infrastructure.
>
> (adding Russell to Cc)
>
> Is this something that could sensibly be added to clk/clkdev?
I don't understand - why would anyone want to use clk/clkdev for timers.
clk/clkdev is all about those signals on the SoC which wiggle at regular
intervals between logic 0 and logic 1. It's not about things which count,
which seems to be an entirely separate problem, and hence why there's
nothing to deal with interrupts or setting timeouts etc.
--
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