Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1262220
| From | Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer |
| Date | 2015-11-04 12:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <qr4ql-8db-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <qqKUG-3Ux-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <qr2RA-78t-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <qr3DY-7Fs-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 11/04/2015 11:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 04 November 2015 10:46:49 Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 11/03/2015 03:28 PM, Jisheng Zhang wrote: >>> In case there are several possible delay timers, we purely base the >>> selection on the frequency, which is suboptimal in some cases. Take >>> one Marvell Berlin platform for example: we have arch timer and dw-apb >>> timer. The arch timer freq is 25MHZ while the dw-apb timer freq is >>> 100MHZ, current selection would choose the dw-apb timer. But the dw >>> apb timer is on the APB bus while arch timer sits in CPU, the cost >>> of accessing the apb timer is higher than the arch timer. >>> >>> This series firstly modifies register_current_timer_delay() to choose >>> the highest rating delay timer: use the rating as a primary indication >>> and fall back to comparing the frequency if the rating is not set or >>> the same. Then we set the arch_delay_timer rating as 400, finally >>> Implement ARM delay timer for the dw_apb_timer and set its rating as 300. >> >> Hi Jisheng, Arnd, >> >> I don't feel comfortable with the rating / freq think. I am afraid this >> approach based on heuristic will bring a lot of complexity and >> workarounds in the code for a small benefit. >> >> Why don't we define a DT entry for the delay timer ? So we delegate the >> choice to the platform DT definition. > > That would be wrong, because the fact that Linux uses a timer to > optimize its udelay() function is not a feature of the hardware. True. Any ideas / suggestions for an alternative ? -- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> - 2015-11-03 15:40 +0100
[PATCH v2 2/3] ARM: arch_timer: set the arch_delay_timer rating as 400 Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> - 2015-11-03 15:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2015-11-04 10:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-11-04 11:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> - 2015-11-04 12:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2015-11-04 13:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] let Marvell Berlin SoCs make use of the best delay timer Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> - 2015-11-05 03:50 +0100
csiph-web