On 16/01/2015 at 11:59:33 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote :
> On 01/16/2015 11:48 AM, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 16/01/2015 at 11:39:16 +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote :
> >>>Isn't that already the case?
> >>>Right now, if you call clocksource_suspend, it doesn't matter whether
> >>>the clocksource has an enable or not, it will be suspended. Maybe I'm
> >>>mistaken but my patch doesn't seem to change that behaviour.
> >>
> >>Actually, if there is no enable/disable callback, then CLOCK_SOURCE_USED
> >>will be never set, hence the condition will always fail and the suspend
> >>callback won't be called.
> >>
> >
> >It is set in clocksource_enable/disable, even if there is no
> >enable/disable callback.
>
> Ah, right. But shouldn't we set the flag only if the callback is present and
> succeed as Boris mentioned it ?
>
What Boris was suggesting was that if the enable exist, set it only if
it succeed. Which gives something like that:
int clocksource_enable(struct clocksource *cs)
{
int ret = 0;
if (cs->enable)
ret = cs->enable(cs);
if (!ret)
cs->flags |= CLOCK_SOURCE_USED;
return 0;
}
I will use that version in v2.
--
Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
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/
