[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208124854.GC2518@codeblueprint.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 12:48:54 +0000
From: Matt Fleming <matt@...eblueprint.co.uk>
To: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
rtc-linux@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] efi: runtime-wrapper: get rid of the rtc_lock
spinlock
On Tue, 01 Dec, at 11:50:19AM, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> The rtc_lock spinlock aims to serialize access to the CMOS RTC between
> the UEFI firmware and the kernel drivers that use it directly. However,
> x86 is the only arch that performs such direct accesses, and that never
> uses the time related UEFI runtime services. Since no other UEFI enlightened
> architectures have a legcay CMOS RTC anyway, we can remove the rtc_lock
> spinlock entirely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/efi/runtime-wrappers.c | 32 +++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
Is this really true? It's not possible, for instance, for 32-bit ARM
systems to use the rtc-cmos driver which would access the same
physical device that UEFI would with the GetTime() service?
With the pending 32-bit ARM UEFI support coming, this needs to be
considered carefully.
--
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