[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56B4C072.3040409@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2016 16:32:02 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mark.rutland@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] clocksource/arm_arch_timer: Enable and verify MMIO
access
On 02/05/2016 04:29 PM, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 01/02/16 19:58, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 02/01, Robin Murphy wrote:
>>> So far, we have been blindly assuming that having access to a
>>> memory-mapped timer frame implies that the individual elements of that
>>> frame frame are already enabled. Whilst it's the firmware's job to give
>>> us non-secure access to frames in the first place, we should not rely
>>> on implementations always being generous enough to also configure CNTACR
>>> for those non-secure frames (e.g. [1]).
>>>
>>> Explicitly enable feature-level access per-frame, and verify that the
>>> access we want is really implemented before trying to make use of it.
>>>
>>> [1]:https://github.com/ARM-software/tf-issues/issues/170
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>
>>> ---
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
>> Tested-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
>
> Great, thanks!
>
> Daniel, am I right in hoping this is something you'll pick up, or should
> I be resending it to arm-soc?
I will be reviewing timers patches next week. I will take care of this one.
Thanks
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists