On 03/21/2013 06:06 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> (adding Marc to Cc as he may have comments).
>
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 10:34:35PM +0000, Rob Herring wrote:
>> From: Rob Herring <rob.herr...@calxeda.com>
>>
>> This converts arm and arm64 to use CLKSRC_OF DT based initialization for
>> the arch timer. A new function arch_timer_arch_init is added to allow for
>> arch specific setup.
>>
>> This has a side effect of enabling sched_clock on omap5 and exynos5. There
>> should not be any reason not to use the arch timers for sched_clock.
>
> Nice! I was just about to post a (slightly updated) version of Thomas
> Abraham's
> arch_timer clocksource_of_init patch, but this seems much more comprehensive.
>
> I have some other arch_timer patches which may clash, but they could be
> rebased
> atop of this.
[snip]
>> @@ -446,10 +446,7 @@ static void __init v2m_dt_timer_init(void)
>> irq_of_parse_and_map(node, 0));
>> }
>>
>> - arch_timer_of_register();
>> -
>> - if (arch_timer_sched_clock_init() != 0)
>> - versatile_sched_clock_init(vexpress_get_24mhz_clock_base(),
>> + versatile_sched_clock_init(vexpress_get_24mhz_clock_base(),
>> 24000000);
>> }
>>
>
> On TC2 this series leads to using the vexpress 24MHz clock as the sched clock
> in preference to the architected timer:
>
> Architected local timer running at 24.00MHz (virt).
> Switching to timer-based delay loop
> Registered arch_counter_get_cntvct+0x0/0x14 as sched_clock source
> sched_clock: 32 bits at 24MHz, resolution 41ns, wraps every 178956ms
> Registered versatile_read_sched_clock+0x0/0x28 as sched_clock source
>
> As they both have the same frequency, neither overrides the other, and
> whichever gets registered last is used as the sched_clock. As accesses to the
> architected timer are going to have a much lower overhead, this isn't very
> nice
> (and it could be better to use it even if it had a lower frequency).
>
> We could move the versatile_sched_clock_init call before the
> clocksource_of_init, but that doesn't feel like an ideal solution. We may have
> similar problems elsewhere.
The intention was that a 64-bit counter is preferred. This should fix
that. It would be nice if we could describe access overhead to make a decision.
For now, I think 32 vs. 64 bit is sufficient.
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c b/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
index 1708357..aa18e45 100644
--- a/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
+++ b/arch/arm/kernel/sched_clock.c
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ void __init setup_sched_clock(u32 (*read)(void), int bits,
unsigned long rate)
u64 res, wrap;
char r_unit;
- if (cd.rate > rate)
+ if (cd.rate > rate || read_sched_clock_64)
return;
BUG_ON(bits > 32);
@@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ void __init setup_sched_clock(u32 (*read)(void), int bits,
unsigned long rate)
void __init setup_sched_clock_64(u64 (*read)(void), unsigned long rate)
{
- if (cd.rate > rate)
+ if (read_sched_clock_64 && (cd.rate > rate))
return;
WARN_ON(!irqs_disabled());
>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> index d7ad425..afb70aa 100644
>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>> @@ -337,24 +337,11 @@ out:
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> -static const struct of_device_id arch_timer_of_match[] __initconst = {
>> - { .compatible = "arm,armv7-timer", },
>> - { .compatible = "arm,armv8-timer", },
>> - {},
>> -};
>> -
>> -int __init arch_timer_init(void)
>> +static void __init arch_timer_init(struct device_node *np)
>> {
>> - struct device_node *np;
>> u32 freq;
>> int i;
>>
>
> If we the following here:
>
> if (arch_timer_get_rate()) {
> pr_warn("arch_timer: multiple nodes in dt, skipping\n");
> return;
> }
>
> We may save ourselves a whole world of pain with dts which (erroneously) have
> multiple timer nodes (though these are now disappearing). Otherwise we could
> have a memory leak and multiple instances of the cpu0 timer registered, which
> could lead to all sorts of weirdness. The existing code side-steps this issue
> by only grabbing the first node, so this would keep things consistent.
>
Okay, I'll add.
Rob
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
