* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Umm.. WHy not make the device tree look like this: > > -- "clocksource" -- +-- HPET > | > +-- TSC > | > +-- i8259 > | > +-- lapic timer > | > .. whatever else > > and use the "struct device" that we *have* for this? The whole "struct > device" is literally designed to do this, and to be embedded into > whatever bigger structures you have that describes higher-level > behaviour. Ie you'd put a "struct device" inside the "struct > clocksource". yeah. There's some practical problems that need to be sorted out: much of the current GTOD code is irq-driven (and all GTOD locks are irq-safe), while the sysfs code needs to run in process-context level. Clocksources 'arrive' and 'depart' in hardirq context (which is the primary place where we notice their breakage, determine that they are now verified to be usable, etc.). This came partly from legacy: the gradual conversion of the monolithic time code, and the need to preserve GTOD and non-GTOD architectures without too much duplication. It also came partly because there's also a fundamental need to have accurate time, which is better served from irq context. i very much agree that this should and must be cleaned up, but it needs quite a bit more logistics than it might appear at first sight. Clockevents basically just followed (and had to follow) the direction of clocksources in this regard. Ingo _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
