On 03-07-15, 13:11, Stefan Agner wrote: > On 2015-07-03 10:57, Viresh Kumar wrote: > > On 03-07-15, 10:10, Stefan Agner wrote: > >> > .features = CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERIODIC | > >> > CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT, > >> > - .set_mode = pit_set_mode, > >> > + .set_state_shutdown = pit_shutdown, > >> > + .set_state_periodic = pit_set_periodic, > >> > >> I'm not really familiar with the interface, but given that we announce > >> the feature CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_ONESHOT shouldn't we add a set_state_oneshot > >> callback here? > > > > We weren't doing anything in pit_set_mode(ONESHOT) and so that > > callback is not implemented. In case you need to do something in > > set_state_oneshot(), we can add it back. > > True, weren't doing anything. I wonder if that is right. Afaik, we > should set the same timer for oneshot too, hence call > pit_set_next_event. With your change we can just reuse the same function > (pit_set_periodic) for set_state_oneshot.
pit_set_next_event() will be called by clockevents core directly after tying to set the device in oneshot mode. And so no changes are required. > To maintain the atomicity of the changes, this would need to be fixed in > a separate patch anyway. So this change looks good to me: > > Acked-by: Stefan Agner <[email protected]> Thanks. > I guess "clockevents: Allow set-state callbacks to be optional" makes it > before this patch? Otherwise we would call a null pointer... Yeah, I have mentioned this in the cover-letter that there are dependencies over clockevent core's next branch. -- viresh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
