[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.21.1811140905440.371@nippy.intranet>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 09:11:41 +1100 (AEDT)
From: Finn Thain <fthain@...egraphics.com.au>
To: Michael Schmitz <schmitzmic@...il.com>
cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Stephen N Chivers <schivers@....com.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Philip Blundell <philb@....org>,
Joshua Thompson <funaho@...ai.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/13] m68k: Drop ARCH_USES_GETTIMEOFFSET
On Tue, 13 Nov 2018, Michael Schmitz wrote:
>
> Running a recent kernel under ARAnyM shows 40 ns resolution so the Atari
> hardware emulation is a little more complete.
>
You mean, 40 us resolution, right?
> Using that for initial tests, I can confirm that timer resolution is
> reduced to 10ms after patch 6, and gets restored to 40ns after applying
> the full series
Thanks for testing!
> (once clocksource_init runs, that is - the first part of the boot is at
> 10ms resolution only, a regression compared to with use of
> arch_gettimeoffset).
>
Sounds like a theoretical regression (?)
Is there any need for more precise timers (I mean, better than 40 us)
before clocksource_init runs?
> Unfortunately, I can't log in at the console with all patches applied. I
> immediately get the 'login timeout exceeded' message. Weird...
>
I didn't see that in my tests... Was this aranym or real hardware or both?
Can you also test tree fbf8405cd982 please?
--
> Cheers,
>
> Michael
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists