[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e0f6523f-36f8-188c-da99-4dcb51375522@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2021 19:35:03 +0800
From: Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: fweisbec@...il.com, john.stultz@...aro.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lorenzo@...gle.com, maz@...nel.org,
mika.penttila@...tfour.com, sboyd@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] tick/broadcast: Split
__tick_broadcast_oneshot_control() into a helper
在 2021/5/27 下午4:22, Will Deacon 写道:
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:06PM +0800, Xin Hao wrote:
>> I had backport you tick/broadcast: Prefer per-cpu relatives patches,
>>
>> but i did not get the true result, the Wakeup Devices are all null, why?
> Probably because you don't have any suitable per-cpu timers to act as a
> wakeup. Do you have a per-cpu timer registered with CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU
Yes, you are right, but i want to know why the timer do not support
CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU.
> and CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT but not CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_C3STOP?
>
> Will
--
Best Regards!
Xin Hao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists