On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 08:26 -0800, John Stultz wrote: > Nice. The cyclecounter struct can work as a good base that I can shift > the clocksource bits over to as I clean that up. > > We will probably want to split this out down the road, but for now its > small enough and related enough that I think its fine in the > clocksource.h/c. > > Also since Magnus has been working on it, does enable/disable accessors > in the cyclecounter struct make sense for your hardware as well? > > Also the corner cases on overflows (how we manage the state, should > reads be deferred for too long) will need to be addressed, but I guess > we can solve that when it becomes an issue. Just to be clear: none of > the hardware you're submitting this round has wrapping issues? Or is > that not the case? Why wouldn't this just use a clocksource directly and not register it with the timekeeping? The cyclecounter is just a subset of the clocksource .. Daniel -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
