linux-kernel - Re: [RFC 3/3] RISC-V: Remove per cpu clocksource

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]

Date:   Mon, 17 Sep 2018 11:32:31 -0700
From:   Atish Patra <atish.patra@....com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc:     "palmer@...ive.com" <palmer@...ive.com>,
        "linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
        "mark.rutland@....com" <mark.rutland@....com>,
        "robh@...nel.org" <robh@...nel.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>,
        "marc.zyngier@....com" <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        "anup@...infault.org" <anup@...infault.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC 3/3] RISC-V: Remove per cpu clocksource

On 9/17/18 8:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 04:52:44PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> If this really does not need configuration and all actual implementations
>> are not "allowed" to screw the timer up, then this surely can do without
>> DT.
> 
> That would be the plan.
> 
>>
>> Just for the record, this would be the first (architected) timer ever which
>> just works. I'm having a hard time to believe this, but I'd certainly
>> welcome it.
> 
> And that would be the contact with reality.  Note that the current
> scheme which just matches for the riscv hart (aka cpu core) nodes
> would not exactly help either.
> 

I thought we will have a dedicated timer node (like all other arch) 
sooner or later and we will just change TIMER_OF to match that node 
instead of riscv hart.

In this way, we will not do something entirely different from any other 
architecture.

Regards,
Atish
>>
>>> -TIMER_OF_DECLARE(riscv_timer, "riscv", riscv_timer_init_dt);
>>> +core_initcall(riscv_timer_init);
>>
>> Are you sure that core_initcall is not too late?
> 
> No, I'm not at all.  This is just intended as a quick throw-away draft.
>