On 04.09.2005 [21:26:16 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > I've got a few ideas that I think might help push Con's patch coalescing
> > efforts in an arch-independent fashion.
>
> Note that ARM contains cleanups on top of Tony's original work, on
> which the x86 version is based.
>
> Basically, Tony submitted his ARM version, we discussed it, fixed up
> some locking problems and simplified it (it contained multiple
> structures which weren't necessary, even in multiple timer-based systems).
<snip>
> > First of all, and maybe this is just me, I think it would be good to
> > make the dyn_tick_timer per-interrupt source, as opposed to each arch?
> > Thus, for x86, we would have a dyn_tick_timer structure for the PIT,
> > APIC, ACPI PM-timer and the HPET. These structures could be put in
> > arch-specific timer.c files (there currently is not one for x86, I
> > believe).
>
> Each timer source should have its own struct dyn_tick_timer. On x86,
> maybe it makes sense having a pointer in the init_timer_opts or timer_opts
> structures?
Just to be clear, I think we mean the same thing with timer source and
interrupt source. But I believe time sources are distinct (which is why<
I think, John hates the naming (his own) of timer_opts).
Thanks,
Nish
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |