On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 27 October 2015 at 18:01, Peter Crosthwaite > <crosthwaitepe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Dmitry Osipenko <dig...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> From my observation, Linux kernel is booting noticeably faster in the > >> emulated guest and host machine CPU usage is lower if we "artificially" > >> slowdown the MPtimer. You really shouldn't use it for the RTC, so doing > that > >> trick shouldn't affect guest behavior. > > > So I do wonder whether with your ptimer conversion this will be > obsoleted, > > as the rate limiter there may do the work for us. > > We still need to pick a nominal PERIPHCLK somehow, and that's > still a pretty arbitrary choice I think (and it doesn't > depend on the CPU speed itself: PERIPHCLK's period can be > any multiple of the main CPU CLK (minimum 2)). > > Yep. But is it nice to know if we can move towards board level configuration of this without the rate-limiting problem. Rather than a 10x rate limiter it should be a QOM property for PERIPHCLK frequency. Regards, Peter > thanks > -- PMM >
