From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753522AbaCMJBF (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 05:01:05 -0400 Received: from smtp.nue.novell.com ([195.135.221.5]:51282 "EHLO smtp.nue.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753389AbaCMJAY (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Mar 2014 05:00:24 -0400 Subject: Re: [RESEND] Fast TSC calibration fails with v3.14-rc1 and later From: joeyli To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Julian Wollrath , x86@kernel.org, LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , John Stultz , "Ted Ts'o" , Linus Torvalds In-Reply-To: References: <20140310110410.5b2218f6@ilfaris> <1554867.utJVyPuT6A@vostro.rjw.lan> <1394678307.26565.218.camel@linux-s257.site> <532121D2.40805@zytor.com> <1394682954.26565.228.camel@linux-s257.site> <53212D14.1090906@zytor.com> <1394683958.26565.235.camel@linux-s257.site> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 16:59:34 +0800 Message-ID: <1394701174.26565.246.camel@linux-s257.site> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 於 四,2014-03-13 於 09:12 +0100,Thomas Gleixner 提到: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2014, joeyli wrote: > > 於 三,2014-03-12 於 20:59 -0700,H. Peter Anvin 提到: > > > On 03/12/2014 08:55 PM, joeyli wrote: > > > > > > > > So do not care "CMOS RTC Not Present", if TAD is present then we use it > > > > instead of CMOS RTC in all kernel code? or we still can use CMOS RTC? > > > > > > > > > > Why would we use *both*!? How would that possibly make sense? > > > > > > -hpa > > > > > > > Yes, it does not make sense for using both. > > > > I switched the code in get_rtc_time() set_rtc_time() to TAD when it > > present, just make sure I'm on the right path. > > No, you're not. get/set_rtc_time() is a complete trainwreck and as I > said before it should move into the rtc subsystem. > > There is no reason at all to keep that stuff in the arch specific > code. It's there for historical reasons and that does not justify to > add more mess to it. Fully understand now. Thanks for your explanation. > > So the right thing to do is: > > 1) Add eventually missing functionality to the RTC subsystem > > 2) Move the arch specific cmos stuff to the rtc subsystem as proper > drivers > > 3) Add TAD there after #2 has been completed. > > Any attempt to add TAD to arch/x86 is NACKed unconditionally. > > Thanks, > > tglx Does there have any people already start the work of #1 and #2? Thanks Joey Lee