On Sat, 2017-12-02 at 10:01 +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
> There is no real need for the users of timecounters to define
> cyclecounter
> and timecounter variables separately. Since timecounter will always
> be
> based on cyclecounter, have cyclecounter struct as member of
> timecounter
>
On 12/2/2017 11:34 PM, Richard Cochran wrote:
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:01:35AM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
There is no real need for the users of timecounters to define cyclecounter
and timecounter variables separately. Since timecounter will always be
based on cyclecounter, have
On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 01:17:34PM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
> There is no real need for the users of timecounters to define cyclecounter
> and timecounter variables separately. Since timecounter will always be
> based on cyclecounter, have cyclecounter struct as member of timecounter
>
On Sat, Dec 02, 2017 at 10:01:35AM +0530, Sagar Arun Kamble wrote:
> There is no real need for the users of timecounters to define cyclecounter
> and timecounter variables separately. Since timecounter will always be
> based on cyclecounter, have cyclecounter struct as member of timecounter
>
There is no real need for the users of timecounters to define cyclecounter
and timecounter variables separately. Since timecounter will always be
based on cyclecounter, have cyclecounter struct as member of timecounter
struct.
Suggested-by: Chris Wilson
Signed-off-by:
There is no real need for the users of timecounters to define cyclecounter
and timecounter variables separately. Since timecounter will always be
based on cyclecounter, have cyclecounter struct as member of timecounter
struct.
Suggested-by: Chris Wilson
Signed-off-by: