[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54B8EF15.4000602@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:59:33 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] clocksource: don't suspend/resume when unused
On 01/16/2015 11:48 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16/01/2015 at 11:39:16 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote :
>>> Isn't that already the case?
>>> Right now, if you call clocksource_suspend, it doesn't matter whether
>>> the clocksource has an enable or not, it will be suspended. Maybe I'm
>>> mistaken but my patch doesn't seem to change that behaviour.
>>
>> Actually, if there is no enable/disable callback, then CLOCK_SOURCE_USED
>> will be never set, hence the condition will always fail and the suspend
>> callback won't be called.
>>
>
> It is set in clocksource_enable/disable, even if there is no
> enable/disable callback.
Ah, right. But shouldn't we set the flag only if the callback is present
and succeed as Boris mentioned it ?
> I only found direct calls to ->enable() in
> timekeeper.c, did I miss some?
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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