[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d180f366-db6f-7cdf-3770-0f32e63fb412@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2019 11:18:37 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] clocksource/arm_arch_timer: Direcly assign
set_next_event workaround
On 11/04/2019 18:17, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 08/04/2019 17:49, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> When a given timer is affected by an erratum and requires an
>> alternative implementation of set_next_event, we do a rather
>> complicated dance to detect and call the workaround on each
>> set_next_event call.
>>
>> This is clearly idiotic, as we can perfectly detect whether
>> this CPU requires a workaround while setting up the clock event
>> device.
>>
>> This only requires the CPU-specific detection to be done a bit
>> earlier, and we can then safely override the set_next_event pointer
>> if we have a workaround associated to that CPU.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
>
> Do you want me to take the patch ?
>
> Otherwise:
>
> Acked-by; Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
I'd like to keep most of the series together (just so that I don't have
to track extra stuff).
Thanks for the Ack though.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists