[PATCH 2/2] mach-sa1100: modernize and cleanup timer code

[Kristoffer Ericson]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:09:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:41:21PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > 2012/1/14 Russell King - ARM Linux <linux at arm.linux.org.uk>:
> > > On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 08:33:54AM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote:
> > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Kristoffer Ericson
> > >> <kristoffer.ericson at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Ursäkta förseningen, fick något minne kring att cpu klockningen inte fungerade korrekt
> > >> > om man inte satte direkt systemklock värde. Var något som pratade med russell om
> > >> > för något år sedan.
> > >>
> > >> Menar du detta:
> > >> MIN_OSCR_DELTA * 2
> > >>
> > >> Så är det ju med i den nya koden oxo, det är ingen semantisk skillnad
> > >> så vitt jag kan se...
> > >>
> > >> Det enda som egentligen ändras är att minimum lapse mellan två events
> > >> (mult+shift) beräknas av clockevent core.
> > >
> > > If you speak english on these lists, other people might be able to
> > > understand what you're saying.
> > 

Sorry, same mistake here :)


> > Haha sorry Russell I didn't notice that the response was in LAKML :-)
> > 
> > So Kristoffer remarked that the CPU clocking was sensitive on the
> > SA1100 so he wanted to test it first.
> > 
> > And I said that apart from the minimum scheduling interval now
> > handled by the clockevent core it should be semantically equivalent.
> > 
> > But it never hurts to test it so I'll wait for Kristoffers ACK.
> 

Ive looked at it and it checks out as you said. So acked-by: Kristoffer Ericson <kristoffer.ericson at gmail.com>
After Russels suggestion of course.


> The only point I have on the patch is that it shouldn't use CLOCK_TICK_RATE
> lets try to get away from this horrible definition in mach/timex.h.