[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5f2b2c3b-ed31-47c8-9008-c338492db7d4@VA3EHSMHS030.ehs.local>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2013 09:53:13 -0700
From: Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
CC: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Michal Simek <michal.simek@...inx.com>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Stuart Menefy <stuart.menefy@...com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
<srinivas.kandagatla@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tick: broadcast: Deny per-cpu clockevents from being
broadcast sources
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:06:40AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On most ARM systems the per-cpu clockevents are truly per-cpu in
> the sense that they can't be controlled on any other CPU besides
> the CPU that they interrupt. If one of these clockevents were to
> become a broadcast source we will run into a lot of trouble
> because the broadcast source is enabled on the first CPU to go
> into deep idle (if that CPU suffers from FEAT_C3_STOP) and that
> could be a different CPU than what the clockevent is interrupting
> (or even worse the CPU that the clockevent interrupts could be
> offline).
>
> Theoretically it's possible to support per-cpu clockevents as the
> broadcast source but so far we haven't needed this and supporting
> it is rather complicated. Let's just deny the possibility for now
> until this becomes a reality (let's hope it never does!).
>
> Reported-by: Sören Brinkmann <soren.brinkmann@...inx.com>
> Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Has this been merged anywhere?
Thanks,
Sören
--
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