[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=WaNGeaXbYcHHBBYosX_0bpZVGCiqi=iuCXamcN3VEEpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 08:21:49 -0700
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
To: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
Christopher Covington <cov@...eaurora.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Nathan Lynch <Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"robh+dt@...nel.org" <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Pawel Moll <Pawel.Moll@....com>,
"ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk" <ijc+devicetree@...lion.org.uk>,
"galak@...eaurora.org" <galak@...eaurora.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] clocksource: arch_timer: Allow the device tree to
specify the physical timer
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 06:00:01PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> +** Optional properties:
>>> +
>>> +- arm,use-physical-timer : Don't ever use the virtual timer, just use the
>>> + physical one. Only supported for ARM (not ARM64).
>>
>> I'm still not keen on telling the kernel what to do rather than
>> describing the actual state of affairs and having the kernel decide what
>> to do. Perhaps what we actually need is:
>>
>> - cntvoff-not-fw-configured: Firmware does not configure CNTVOFF, which
>> may reset to (different) arbitrary values on each CPU.
>>
>> This also doesn't describe that CNTHCTL.PL1PC(T)EN must both be 1. While
>> that is the reset state, it still feels dodbgy to me to rely on that.
>>
>> Mark.
>
> Mark, I'm happy to repost it with that name for Doug.
>
> I think it's fair to describe this state in the binding, and if a
> firmware were to put this property into the device-tree for and
> CNTHCTL.PL1P(T)CEN also have configured to 0, then the kernel can
> merely consider that to be a broken usage of this property. We
> certainly can't protect against all of the possible invalid states
> caused and probably shouldn't try. If we implement something like
> Christopher's suggestion for transitioning from secure svc to NS hyp
> mode then the kernel can simply ignore this property at that point.
I've already talked in person to Sonny about this, but just to post on
the list too... I think Mark Rutland's suggestion is a good one and
I'm more than happy for Sonny to repost that way for me. Thanks! :)
-Doug
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists