[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.2601242221580.6421@angie.orcam.me.uk>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2026 22:28:41 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...am.me.uk>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...nel.org>
cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
"Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>,
Jiri Wiesner <jwiesner@...e.de>, Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ra.org>,
Scott Hamilton <scott.hamilton@...den.com>, Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] MIPS: Dont select CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG
On Sat, 24 Jan 2026, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> MIPS selects CLOCKSOURCE_WATCHDOG, but none of the clocksources actually
> sets the MUST_VERIFY flag. So compiling the watchdog in is a pointless
> exercise. Remove the selects.
Based on commit 385864280597 ("mips: csrc-r4k: Mark R4K timer as unstable
if CPU freq changes") which added some of this stuff shouldn't the flag be
set instead?
At first glance the situation seems analogous to that of the x86 TSC:
just as the TSC the R4k timer is a CPU onchip free-running counter driven
by the CPU clock (typically at half the rate).
Maciej
Powered by blists - more mailing lists