Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM 64 bit sched_clock take #2

2013-04-23 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 04/22/13 13:46, Rob Herring wrote: > On 04/22/2013 12:00 PM, John Stultz wrote: >> On 04/19/2013 05:29 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>> This is what I was thinking. I don't see why we can't move this to >>> generic code and have arm64 use it too. Those patches will follow once >>> I find an arm64 >>>

Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM 64 bit sched_clock take #2

2013-04-22 Thread Rob Herring
On 04/22/2013 12:00 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On 04/19/2013 05:29 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> This is what I was thinking. I don't see why we can't move this to >> generic code and have arm64 use it too. Those patches will follow once >> I find an arm64 >> compiler. > > I think moving this to generi

Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM 64 bit sched_clock take #2

2013-04-22 Thread John Stultz
On 04/19/2013 05:29 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: This is what I was thinking. I don't see why we can't move this to generic code and have arm64 use it too. Those patches will follow once I find an arm64 compiler. I think moving this to generic code sounds like a good idea. You could probably also

Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM 64 bit sched_clock take #2

2013-04-22 Thread Mark Rutland
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 04:36:14PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 04/22/13 08:34, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Hi Stephen, > > > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 01:29:02AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> This is what I was thinking. I don't see why we can't move this to generic > >> code and have arm64 use i

Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM 64 bit sched_clock take #2

2013-04-22 Thread Stephen Boyd
On 04/22/13 08:34, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 01:29:02AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> This is what I was thinking. I don't see why we can't move this to generic >> code and have arm64 use it too. Those patches will follow once I find an >> arm64 compiler. >> >> F

Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM 64 bit sched_clock take #2

2013-04-22 Thread Mark Rutland
Hi Stephen, On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 01:29:02AM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote: > This is what I was thinking. I don't see why we can't move this to generic > code and have arm64 use it too. Those patches will follow once I find an > arm64 compiler. > > First two patches should probably go in even if t

Re: [PATCH 0/4] ARM 64 bit sched_clock take #2

2013-04-22 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Saturday 20 April 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > This is what I was thinking. I don't see why we can't move this to generic > code > and have arm64 use it too. Those patches will follow once I find an arm64 > compiler. I don't have enough background to review the patches, but I know that you can