Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] tick/broadcast: Split __tick_broadcast_oneshot_control() into a helper
From: Thomas Gleixner <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-01 18:14:40
Also in:
lkml
On Tue, Jun 01 2021 at 13:13, Will Deacon wrote:
On Mon, May 31, 2021 at 04:29:20PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:quoted
On Thu, May 27 2021 at 12:56, Will Deacon wrote:quoted
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 07:35:03PM +0800, Xin Hao wrote:quoted
在 2021/5/27 下午4:22, Will Deacon 写道:quoted
On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 03:23:06PM +0800, Xin Hao wrote:quoted
I had backport you tick/broadcast: Prefer per-cpu relatives patches, but i did not get the true result, the Wakeup Devices are all null, why?Probably because you don't have any suitable per-cpu timers to act as a wakeup. Do you have a per-cpu timer registered with CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPUYes, you are right, but i want to know why the timer do not support CLOCK_EVT_FEAT_PERCPU.I defer to Thomas on this one.How should I know what kind of timers this hardware has?Duh, sorry, I replied to the wrong question. I meant to defer the decision about whether to print "<NULL>" if the wakeup timer is absent, or whether to omit the line entirely. I went with the former in the patches you queued as it's both consistent with the rest of the code and probably (?) easier to parse.
That makes more sense. I just kept it as is. The <NULL> is fine.
Thanks,
tglx
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel