[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150116111706.GE12302@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 11:17:06 +0000
From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
To: Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>
Cc: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents: don't suspend/resume if unused
On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:20:14AM +0100, Sylvain Rochet wrote:
> Hello Alexandre,
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:05:51AM +0100, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > There is no point in calling suspend/resume for unused
> > clockevents as they are already stopped and disabled.
> >
> > Furthermore, it can take some time to wait for some IPs to stop counting.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
> > Reported-by: Sylvain Rochet <sylvain.rochet@...secur.com>
>
> Indeed, this is way better from what I did.
>
>
> > + if (dev->suspend && dev->mode != CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED)
>
> I wonder if we should use > CLOCK_EVT_MODE_SHUTDOWN
> (or CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED || CLOCK_EVT_MODE_SHUTDOWN) instead of
> !CLOCK_EVT_MODE_UNUSED.
Definitely - consider the effect of the original patch set on a clock
source which is being used, has PM support, but does not have an
->enable callback.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
--
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