[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1505252046400.5457@nanos>
Date: Mon, 25 May 2015 20:48:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>
cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
sylvain.rochet@...secur.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] clockevents: don't suspend/resume if unused
On Fri, 16 Jan 2015, 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.
While I agree with the patch itself, I really can't understand that
last sentence.
If stuff is stopped and disabled, what takes time to stop counting?
Thanks,
tglx
--
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