Hi John, Thanks for the review.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 05:20:36PM -0800, John Stultz wrote: > On 12/12/2012 06:05 PM, Feng Tang wrote: > >In current kernel, there are several places which need to check > >whether there is a persistent clock for the platform. Current check > >is done by calling the read_persistent_clock() and validating the > >return value. > > > >Add such a flag to make code more readable and call read_persistent_clock() > >only once for all the checks. > Sorry.. What the actual benefit of this patch set? (Usually with > changelogs its better to explain why you're doing something, rather > then just what you're doing.) The main benefits is not bother to do the rtc_resume and rtc_suspend work if persistent clock exists. Current RTC suspend/resume code will do many time calculation and compensation work at first, and then call timekeeping_inject_sleeptime() which will just return for platform with persistent clock, what I did in this patchset is to put the check at the start, also I save the persistent_clock_exist flag for all possible check after timekeeping_init(). > > Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems this doesn't change the > resulting logic of the code, does it? As I thought we already check > read_persistent_clocks() output (and make sure its null) before > using the rtc HCTOSYS_DEVICE. No, it doesn't change the code logic. Thanks, Feng -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
