On Wed, 2012-01-18 at 16:58 +0530, Vaibhav Hiremath wrote:
> +/**
> + * read_persistent_clock - Return time from a persistent clock.
> + *
> + * Reads the time from a source which isn't disabled during PM, the
> + * 32k sync timer. Convert the cycles elapsed since last read into
> + * nsecs and adds to a monotonically increasing timespec.
> + */
> +void read_persistent_clock(struct timespec *ts)
> +{
> + cycles_t delta;
> + struct timespec *tsp;
> + unsigned long long nsecs;
> + struct omap_counter_32k_device *omap = cs;
> +
> + if (!omap) {
> + ts->tv_sec = 0;
> + ts->tv_nsec = 0;
> + return;
> + }
> + tsp = &omap->persistent_ts;
> +
> + omap->last_cycles = omap->cycles;
> + omap->cycles = omap->cs.read(&omap->cs);
> + delta = omap->cycles - omap->last_cycles;
> +
> + nsecs = clocksource_cyc2ns(delta,
> + omap->cs.mult, omap->cs.shift);
> +
> + timespec_add_ns(tsp, nsecs);
> + *ts = *tsp;
> +}
Hrm. So read_persistent_clock should probably be defined once per arch.
So I'm not sure if it makes sense to include this implementation into
the generic drivers/clocksource directory, as if some other arch tried
to include this clocksource (say if they had the same hardware) they
might have collisions w/ their read_persistent_clock implementation.
I'm all for being able to re-use clocksource drivers. But this is the
sort of thing that makes me worry we're maybe being too aggressive in
pushing clocksources that really are fairly arch/platform specific into
drivers/clocksource/
thanks
-john
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
