Doug Anderson wrote: > > Kukjin, > Hi Doug, > On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 05/17/14 07:56, Chirantan Ekbote wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Anyway, I'm by no means opposed to switching to arch timers. They > >>>>> provide a well designed, generic interface and drivers shared by > >>>>> multiple platforms, which means more code sharing and possibly more > >>>>> eyes > >>>>> looking at the code, which is always good. However if they don't > >>>>> support > >>>>> low power states correctly, we can't just remove MCT. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> I think low power states aren't in mainline (right?). > >>>> > >>>> One solution that might work could be to leave the device tree entry > >>>> alone but change the MCT init code to simply act as a no-op if it sees > >>>> an arch timer is in the device tree and enabled. Then when/if someone > >>>> got the low power states enabled we could just change source code > >>>> rather than dts files. > >>>> > >> > >> Doug and I were talking about this and we think we may have a way to > >> have the mct and arch timers co-exist. The main issue is that the mct > >> (and therefore arch timer) gets cleared once during boot and every > >> time we do a suspend / resume. This happens in > >> exynos4_mct_frc_start() but it's not immediately clear to us why the > >> counter needs to be reset at all. If we remove the lines that clear > >> the counter then there is no longer an issue with having both the mct > >> and the arch timers on at the same time. > >> > >> Alternately, if there is some code that depends on the mct being reset > >> we could store an offset instead of clearing the counter and then > >> subtract that offset every time something reads it. Doug has a patch > >> that does this at > >> https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/#/c/200298/. Effectively the > >> visible behavior will not change. Would either of these options work? > >> > > Hi all, > > > > Even though I've heard something about the behavior of mct and arch > > timer...but I couldn't finish the talk to h/w guys yet. I need to talk > again > > in next week then I could provide some useful information. Sorry for late > > and can you please wait a minute before deciding whatever. > > I think we could wait a few days. Note however, that Chirantan's > latest proposal keeps all existing functionality (can use both MCT and > arch timers). It merely removes the unnecessary bit of the MCT init > code setting the timer. No functionality is affected by that. > Let me explain the behavior of MCT and arch timer. Basically the two blocks are connected and the arch timer uses the count value from MCT for reference on exynos5250 so following in this mail thread is expected and it's true. * If you read the MCT and the arch timer, they give the same value. And as you know, usually the access to arch timer is faster than MCT because of APB bus access...but using MCT has some benefits sometimes it depends on use case of power management though. BTW, since exynos5260, exynos5420 and exynos5800 doesn't support arch timer, we have been using MCT on exynos5 SoCs. I hope this makes clear and my suggestion on previous this email thread would be helpful. Thanks, Kukjin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |