[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=VO2f78AMRfWbhn8MZ8y1wKFPUdOf64BUpKuS+GEvnWGA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2016 15:14:29 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
Cc: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Heiko Stuebner <heiko@...ech.de>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
"open list:ARM/Rockchip SoC..." <linux-rockchip@...ts.infradead.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Caesar Wang <wxt@...k-chips.com>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] clocksource: arm_arch_timer: Don't assume clock
runs in suspend
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org> wrote:
> The ARM ARM specifies that the system counter "must be implemented in an
> always-on power domain," and so we try to use the counter as a source of
> timekeeping across suspend/resume. Unfortunately, some SoCs (e.g.,
> Rockchip's RK3399) do not keep the counter ticking properly when
> switched from their high-power clock to the lower-power clock used in
> system suspend. Support this quirk by adding a new device tree property.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>
> ---
> v2:
> * add new device tree property, instead of re-using the "always-on"
> property (which has different meaning)
>
> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/arch_timer.txt | 5 +++++
> drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
FWIW:
Reviewed-by: Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists