David Miller writes:
> From: Robert Jarzmik
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:36:56 +0200
>
>> Which brings me to wonder which is the more correct :
>> (a) replace to reproduce the same calculation
>> Previously mtt was compared to a difference of 76ns steps (as 307ns / 4
>> =
>> 76ns):
>>
From: Robert Jarzmik
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2015 18:36:56 +0200
> Which brings me to wonder which is the more correct :
> (a) replace to reproduce the same calculation
> Previously mtt was compared to a difference of 76ns steps (as 307ns / 4 =
> 76ns):
> while ((sched_clock() - si->las
David Miller writes:
>> My understanding is that the flow will be :
>> sched_clock()
>>rd->read_sched_clock() (cyc_to_ns() transformed for return)
>> pxa_read_sched_clock()
>>readl_relaxed(OSCR)
>>
>> I didn't see any timings issue, as the flow looks equivalent to the
>> readl
From: Robert Jarzmik
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 11:34:01 +0200
> David Miller writes:
>
>> From: Robert Jarzmik
>> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:45:22 +0200
>>
>>> Instead of using directly the OS timer through direct register access,
>>> use the standard sched_clock(), which will end up in OSCR readi
David Miller writes:
> From: Robert Jarzmik
> Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:45:22 +0200
>
>> Instead of using directly the OS timer through direct register access,
>> use the standard sched_clock(), which will end up in OSCR reading
>> anyway.
>>
>> This is a first step for direct access register r
From: Robert Jarzmik
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2015 13:45:22 +0200
> Instead of using directly the OS timer through direct register access,
> use the standard sched_clock(), which will end up in OSCR reading
> anyway.
>
> This is a first step for direct access register removal and machine
> specific cod
Instead of using directly the OS timer through direct register access,
use the standard sched_clock(), which will end up in OSCR reading
anyway.
This is a first step for direct access register removal and machine
specific code removal from this driver.
Signed-off-by: Robert Jarzmik
---
drivers/