[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151020193639.GA15095@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 21:36:39 +0200
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Christopher Hall <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>,
Jeff Kirsher <jeffrey.t.kirsher@...el.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
intel-wired-lan@...ts.osuosl.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, kevin.b.stanton@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] Produce system time from correlated clocksource
On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:11:21PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Darn, we don't want to have that kind of sampling in every driver
> which has this kind of problem even if it looks like the simpler
> choice for this particular use case. This is going to be something
> which next generation chips will have on more than just the audio
> interface and we realy want to have a generic solution for this.
Right, having multiple drivers sampling is bad.
Just thinking out loud: how about a service layer that can handle
multiple drivers? The layer samples at the maximum requested rate,
and buffers the history for the maximum requested backlog. The
non-max rate users simply get a higher resolution than they need.
A generic solution would handle any history length for old time
stamps, within reason. I think hard coding 4 ms (or 8 ms or 800 ms)
is clunky.
Thanks,
Richard
--
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