linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 44/48] clocksource: atmel-pit: allow unselecting ATMEL

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160616164135.7d810a7b@bbrezillon>
Date:	Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:41:35 +0200
From:	Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com>,
	Nicolas Ferre <nicolas.ferre@...el.com>,
	Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 44/48] clocksource: atmel-pit: allow unselecting
 ATMEL_PIT

Hi Thomas,

On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 21:14:47 +0200 (CEST)
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On Mon, 13 Jun 2016, Boris Brezillon wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:53:51 +0200
> > Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...e-electrons.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On 11/06/2016 at 11:43:54 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote :  
> > > > On Sat, 11 Jun 2016, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > >     
> > > > > With the new TCB clocksource driver, atmel platforms are now able to boot
> > > > > without the PIT driver. Allow unselecting it.    
> > > > 
> > > > Yay! Thanks for doing this!
> > > >     
> > > 
> > > Sure! Can you still check the request_irq/free_irq in
> > > timer-atmel-tcbclksrc? I'm not sure whether this can work reliably or
> > > only because we are before SYSTEM_STATE=RUNNING.
> > > In the latter case, I have another way of doing that.
> > >   
> > 
> > Sorry to put it back on the table, but shouldn't we consider adding
> > these irq_disable/enable_action() helpers?  
> 
> I fear that's the only reliable way to do it.

Alexandre told me you had a better implementation (or idea, I don't
remember) than what was proposed here [1].
Do you plan to submit something, or should we work on it?

Regards,

Boris

[1]https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/8/3/330

-- 
Boris Brezillon, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
http://free-electrons.com