[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170419155627.GA9439@red-moon>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 16:56:27 +0100
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
To: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: linaro-acpi@...ts.linaro.org, catalin.marinas@....com,
will.deacon@....com, rruigrok@...eaurora.org, wim@...ana.be,
fu.wei@...aro.org, wei@...hat.com, al.stone@...aro.org,
tn@...ihalf.com, timur@...eaurora.org, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux@...ck-us.net, lenb@...nel.org,
harba@...eaurora.org, julien.grall@....com,
linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org, arnd@...db.de,
marc.zyngier@....com, jcm@...hat.com, cov@...eaurora.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
graeme.gregory@...aro.org, rjw@...ysocki.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, leo.duran@....com,
hanjun.guo@...aro.org, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com,
sudeep.holla@....com, christoffer.dall@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v24 09/11] acpi/arm64: Add memory-mapped timer support in
GTDT driver
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:45:54PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 04:07:25PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 06:21:07PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 02:40:12AM +0800, fu.wei@...aro.org wrote:
>
> > > If yes, why can't it simply be written like this ?
> > >
> > > for (; i >= 0; i--, gtdt_frame--) {
> > > frame = &timer_mem->frame[gtdt_frame->frame_number];
> > >
> > > /* not sure this check is actually needed */
> > > if (gtdt_frame->common_flags & ACPI_GTDT_GT_IS_SECURE_TIMER)
> > > continue;
> > >
> > > if (frame->phys_irq > 0)
> > > acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->timer_interrupt);
> > > if (frame->virt_irq > 0)
> > > acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->virtual_timer_interrupt);
> > > }
> >
> > A reverse loop of this form will work.
> >
> > That requires some restructuring, and care to avoid going out of bounds
> > instantaneously with the gtdt_frame--, so as to not invoke nasal demons.
> >
> > I've attacked this locally, and will send this out after testing. I'll
> > drop the new ACPI API patch.
>
> FWIW, I've set this up so the cleanup path is:
>
> do {
> if (gtdt_frame->common_flags & ACPI_GTDT_GT_IS_SECURE_TIMER ||
> gtdt_frame->frame_number >= ARCH_TIMER_MEM_MAX_FRAMES)
> continue;
>
> frame = &timer_mem->frame[gtdt_frame->frame_number];
>
> if (frame->phys_irq > 0)
> acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->timer_interrupt);
> frame->phys_irq = 0;
>
> if (frame->virt_irq > 0)
> acpi_unregister_gsi(gtdt_frame->virtual_timer_interrupt);
> frame->virt_irq = 0;
> } while (i-- >= 0 && gtdt_frame--);
>
> ... the zeroing is to account for duplicate frames, which I now check for in
> the probe path (as we do for DT).
>
> Can I take it per your comment on the prior version that with this change I can
> take your ack?
Yes, thanks for fixing it up, please add my:
Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>
> I also assume that you're happy for all of the drivers/acpi/arm64/ patches in the
> series to go via the clocksource tree?
Yes that's how I expect them to go upstream, that's the simplest way.
Thanks !
Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists