On 04.09.2005 [21:26:16 +0100], Russell King wrote: > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > I've got a few ideas that I think might help push Con's patch coalescing > > efforts in an arch-independent fashion. > > Note that ARM contains cleanups on top of Tony's original work, on > which the x86 version is based. > > Basically, Tony submitted his ARM version, we discussed it, fixed up > some locking problems and simplified it (it contained multiple > structures which weren't necessary, even in multiple timer-based systems).
<snip> > > First of all, and maybe this is just me, I think it would be good to > > make the dyn_tick_timer per-interrupt source, as opposed to each arch? > > Thus, for x86, we would have a dyn_tick_timer structure for the PIT, > > APIC, ACPI PM-timer and the HPET. These structures could be put in > > arch-specific timer.c files (there currently is not one for x86, I > > believe). > > Each timer source should have its own struct dyn_tick_timer. On x86, > maybe it makes sense having a pointer in the init_timer_opts or timer_opts > structures? Just to be clear, I think we mean the same thing with timer source and interrupt source. But I believe time sources are distinct (which is why< I think, John hates the naming (his own) of timer_opts). Thanks, Nish - 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/